(828) 698-5795 

Mountain Vapor Blog

Welcome to the blog area of our site where we hope to keep you updated on the trends of the e-cigarette industry as well as product reviews.

Japan Tobacco to buy UK e-cigarette brand E-Lites

LONDON (Reuters) - Japan Tobacco Inc has agreed to buy the maker of E-Lites, a leading brand of e-cigarettes in Britain, giving it entry into the fast-growing market for tobacco alternatives. Japan Tobacco said on Wednesday that it had agreed to buy all outstanding shares of E-Lites' parent company Zandera, founded in 2009. Financial terms were not disclosed, though the company said it would fund the purchase with existing cash and debt. It said the deal is expected to have a minor effect on its performance and cash flow in fiscal 2014. As rates of smoking decline, big tobacco companies such as Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco Group have been jostling for position in the growing market for electronic cigarettes, which use nicotine-laced liquid. Some analysts believe e-cigarettes will eventually outsell traditional cigarettes in some markets. Japan Tobacco, the maker of Winston, Camel and Mild Seven, already sells outside the United States a smoking device called Ploom that heats, but does not burn, pods of tobacco. E-Lites, one of the leading brands in the UK, is the company's first tobacco alternative. E-Lites' parent had revenue of about 16 million pounds in the fiscal year ended March 2014. (Reporting by Martinne Geller in London; Editing by Jason Neely and Pravin Char)Consumer DiscretionaryInvestment & Company InformationJapan Tobacco IncOriginal author: Warner
  1729 Hits
  0 Comments

E-Cigs and Second-Hand Vaping

Is it safe to bogart that e-cig or even be in the same room with an e-cig bogarter?OK, in this post we’re going to clue you in on some of the potential issues with electronic cigarettes or e-cigs, as they’re diminutively known. But before we do, we need to get one thing straight: Smoking cigarettes kills. Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking “is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, accounting for more than 480,000 deaths, or one of every five deaths, each year.”Add to that the more than 16 million Americans who suffer from a smoking-related disease, and it’s fairly clear anything that lowers the rate of cigarette smoking is going to improve our overall health.Smoking cigarettes is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The latest statistics from the Centers for Disease Control show the number of U.S. deaths attributable to cigarette smoking has climbed to 480,000. (Source: cdc.gov, 2000-2004)Americans Are Smoking LessThe numbers are somewhat encouraging. While more than 40 percent of Americans smoked in 1965, only about 18 percent did in 2012. However, given that our population grew over that time, the net drop in American smokers — 1965′s 50 million smokers versus 2012′s 42 million — is only 8 million.That drop in the rate of smoking probably didn’t just happen. The government and a host of nonprofits have waged a long and hard campaign against smoking: ever-increasing taxes, a ban on broadcast advertising, and anti-smoking ad campaigns that promote a healthy lifestyle and warn of the health risks of smoking. (Californiaappears to be leading the pack in this fight.) And ever since 1966, Americans have not been able to purchase a pack of cigarettes free of a stern warning about the hazards of smoking.For decades the government and many nonprofits have mounted anti-smoking campaigns. Some of this work seems to have paid off. (FDA)Then there’s the wide assortment of products to help smokers kick the habit – everything frompatches and gum to prescription drugs, lozenges and lollipops. And more recently e-cigarettes.The Newest and Coolest: ‘Vaping’Although they were patented back in the 1960s, electronic cigarettes didn’t really come onto the scene until the past decade, appearing first in China in 2004and spreading to other areas including Europe in 2006 and then the United States the following year. (See infographic on the history of e-cigarettes.)These cigarette lookalikes basically consist of a cartridge, a battery and an LED light. When turned on, the e-cig heats up the liquid that is housed in the cartridge; this produces an aerosol mist or vapor, which the “smoker” inhales or “vapes,” an alternate term that denotes the lack of combustion. The ingredients of the liquid vary, but generally include nicotine (though some are nicotine free), chemicals to vaporize the nicotine (like propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin), additives and flavoring.Since they are tobacco free, e-cigs are currently unregulated in the United States but that may change. Already cities like Boston, Chicago, New York, and most recently Los Angeles have restricted their use. And Utah, New Jersey and North Dakota havebanned their use wherever smoking is prohibited. Other states and localities includingMinnesota and Oregon are considering restrictions as well.It is my impression that there’s some confusion in how e-cigs are being marketed. In some cases they are being touted as a nicotine replacement product that smokers can use to eventually quit smoking altogether or (more likely to me) a healthier way to get your nicotine.E-cigarettes are taking off as an alternative to conventional cigarettes. But when it comes to health, are they safe or do they blow?And I guess if you “got to” smoke (whatever that means) I suppose e-cigs are probably a lot less unhealthy than good, old-fashioned cigarettes.Given the long and sorry list of harmful and toxic chemicals in cigarettes, vaping is almost certainly less dangerous to your health.The Potential Hazards of VapingBut don’t be fooled into thinking that e-cigs are without risks or that you should now be able to vape to your heart’s content. Or that they’re plain healthy.First of all, nicotine is a drug and apowerfully habit-forming one at that, and a 2013 study suggests that even inhaling the drug via either conventional cigarettes or e-cigs may contribute to heart disease.Also there is evidence that e-cigs deliver some toxic stuff of their own such as formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), nitrosamines (linked to cancer) and lead (a neurotoxin). Though the toxicant levels of e-cigs may be “9-450 times lower than in cigarette smoke,” as this study suggests, levels of formaldehyde and metalshave been found to be comparable to or higher than those found in conventional cigarettes.* Silicate particles, which are a cause of lung disease, have also been found in e-cigarette vapors.The ‘Second-Hand Smoke’ QuestionA number of e-cig enthusiasts I have spoken to believe that the ban on smoking cigarettes in public places should not apply to e-cigs. And some are acting on that belief. I’ve even seen a woman confidently doing her e-cig thing on the subway in New York. Another in a restaurant.And why not? Electronic cigarettes don’t burn and so there is no smoke. And no smoke means no second-hand smoke. And no second-hand smoke means no health worries for the non-e-cig public who happen to be in the vicinity. Sounds reasonable and what a boon for nicotine addicts. Relegated, lo all these years, to standing outside in the freezing cold or blistering heat to get their fix and unable to inhale while in flight, now e-cig users can reenter conventional society.But is there really no second-hand “smoke”?Don’t be so sure. A small study by Wolfgang Schober of the Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority and colleagues published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health in December found that vaping worsened indoor air quality, specifically by increasing the concentration of nicotine, particulate matter, PAHs and aluminum — compounds that have been linked to lung and cardiovascular disease and cancer among other health effects.The upshot? Probably won’t be long before the nicotine-inhaling e-cig users of the world find themselves legislated back out into the cold to hang with their conventional nicotine-smoking addicts.__________________End Note* Comparable levels of some metals have been reported for FDA-approved nicotine inhalers as well. Depending upon your view of FDA regulations, you could take this as an “all clear” on metals and e-cigs. One difference between inhalers and e-cigs that may impact exposure is that the vapors from FDA inhalers are absorbed in the mouthrather than the lungs like e-cigs.Follow Bill Chameides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheGreenGrok E-Cigs and Second-Hand VapingOriginal author: Riley
  1864 Hits
  0 Comments

Glantz and Colleagues Support Government Suppression of the Truth about Electronic Cigarettes

In a submission to the FDA regarding the proposed deeming regulations, Stan Glantz and colleagues have called on a government ban on truthful speech by electronic cigarette companies: namely, stating that electronic cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes. The authors of this comment want the FDA to expressly prohibit electronic cigarette companies from informing consumers that vaping is safer than smoking.In fact, one of the complaints in the comment is that "E-cigarette companies are marketing e-cigarettes as healthier alternatives to cigarette smoking."Glantz believes that informing consumers that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking will increase the appeal of e-cigarettes to youth, and on that basis, he wants the truth to be suppressed. The comment recommends that FDA ban "indirect health claims," which presumably means claims that e-cigarettes are safer than real cigarettes.The Rest of the StoryIt is perfectly reasonable for the government to intervene to prevent companies from making false or misleading claims to the public. Even severe infringement of free speech by corporations may be justified in the case of preventing the deception of consumers. However, there is little justification for prohibiting companies from telling consumers the truth, and there is no justification for suppressing the truth when those facts are the most pertinent information that the consumer needs to know in order to make an informed decision about using the product.There is little question that electronic cigarettes are much safer than tobacco cigarettes (even Glantz himself admits that). And further, there is little question that the most important piece of information consumers need in deciding whether to continue to smoke real cigarettes or switch to the fake ones is that the fake ones don't contain or burn tobacco and are therefore much safer than the real tobacco cigarettes.Why would we want to suppress the provision of this information to the public? And what justification is there for a government-mandated suppression of the truth?While I agree with Stan on virtually every aspect of the regulation of cigarette marketing, we part ways when he advocates the suppression of the truth. Original author: Michael Siegel
  1572 Hits
  0 Comments

This Fast-Growing ‘Cigarette Killer’ Has 30% Upside

Although over-the-counter (OTC) stocks are growing in popularity, most investors avoid them because of their reputation for extreme risk.Among the most common dangers of OTC stocks are poor transparency (since the underlying companies don't have to file with the SEC), the inability to meet minimum financial and other requirements for listing on a major exchange, and increased susceptibility to "pump and dump" scams. What's more, OTC stocks often display absolutely sickening price volatility.So once an OTC stock gets to where it can uplist to a major exchange like the Nasdaq or NYSE, many investors may get the impression the stock is now "safe." And this could be the case with one small stock that's right in the thick of what may be the Next Big Thing -- electronic cigarettes.After trading on the "pink sheets" for years, this tiny e-cigarette maker with a $92 million market capitalization has been trading on the Nasdaq since May 30. Its stock price is up 25% since the uplisting was announced on May 28. So to many investors, the company could be looking more and more like a legitimate and reasonably safe entry point into the emerging e-cigarette industry, especially since it's really the only pure play around.View gallery.And though there are reasons why the company -- Vapor Corp. (Nasdaq: VPCO) -- is worthy of investors' consideration, there are also reasons to exercise extreme caution, despite the greater credibility that comes with a Nasdaq listing.[More from StreetAuthority.com: Icahn Is Loading Up On A Stock With 77% Upside]There's certainly no arguing with Vapor's success so far. With an increasingly familiar stable of brands such as Krave, Alternacig and EZ Smoker, as well as a large retail presence consisting of nearly 60,000 online and retail outlets in the U.S. and Canada, the company has tripled sales since 2009, to $24 million.That may only be 1.6% of the $1.5 billion e-cigarette market -- but even if Vapor merely maintains this share of the market, it could still mean awesome growth. Assuming industrywide revenues hit $24 billion in 2023 as Wells Fargo analysts project, a 1.6% slice would translate to annual sales north of $380 million for Vapor about a decade from now.That's nearly 16 times current revenues. And at that level of performance, I doubt the company would have much trouble generating strong per-share profits.However, it's not there yet. Indeed, Vapor hasn't even achieved consistent profitability, though it's a good sign that earnings have been positive in three of the past six years.View gallery.[More from StreetAuthority.com: The Best Thousand-Dollar Stock You've Never Heard Of]In the meantime, the company faces a lot of uncertainty because its operations are small next to those of big tobacco companies beginning to muscle in on the e-cigarette action. For instance, Lorillard (NYSE: LO), the third-largest tobacco maker in the U.S., has been especially aggressive about pursuing growth in the e-cigarette space and already generates annual sales of more than $200 million with its Blu and Skycig brands.The second-largest U.S. tobacco maker, Reynolds American (NYSE: RAI) is also establishing a presence in e-cigarettes, with its new Vuse brand. Plus, the firm is in talks to acquire Lorillard, a deal that would give it three e-cigarette brands with far larger sales than Vapor's.Thus, there appear to be several possible outcomes for Vapor. One is to keep operating independently with a relatively small but potentially very profitable piece of the e-cigarette pie. This could eventually lead to a buyout by one of the big tobacco companies such as Altria (NYSE: MO), the maker of Marlboro, since that company has been slowest to adopt e-cigarettes and may need to play catch up. Or Vapor could be overwhelmed by its much bigger competitors and go out under.As with any speculative investment, it's tough to say what's going to happen with Vapor. Although the new Nasdaq listing indicates important strides have been made, this is still a young company in an emerging industry with an uncertain future. So those interested in Vapor as a potentially fast-growing pure play or buyout candidate should consider only establishing a small position in the stock. [More from StreetAuthority.com: Whole Foods Is Down 30% -- Time To Buy?]They should certainly expect to continue seeing excessive volatility -- shares commonly fluctuate by double digits on any given day and have ranged in price from $3 to $10 during the past 12 months -- and be aware they could lose their whole investment in the worst-case scenario.Risks to Consider: Besides intense competition, Vapor faces the risk of much heavier regulation since the federal government is authorized to treat e-cigarettes the same as regular tobacco products. Compliance costs could place more financial strain on Vapor than it can bear.Action to Take --> Despite its promise, I think Vapor could be more than 30% undervalued. Specifically, investors have historically been willing to pay 13 times book value for the stock. Applying that multiple to the current per-share book value of $0.66 suggests shares are worth $8.58 apiece. Yet they're only trading at around $5.80.Valuing the stock is admittedly a bit tricky, though, since Vapor is in its infancy and there's currently covered by only one analyst, who projects earnings per share (EPS) of $0.34 in 2015, suggesting a reasonable forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 17. Investors willing to take a risk have a good entry point right now.Related Articles This Fast-Growing 'Cigarette Killer' Has 30% UpsideInsiders Are Wrong About This Industry LeaderGet 100% Upside From This Side Play On The U.S. Energy BoomConsumer DiscretionaryInvestment & Company InformationOriginal author: Daren
  1840 Hits
  0 Comments

It's Official: Big Pharma is Lobbying Against Electronic Cigarettes

I have long argued that tobacco control advocates who have financial ties to Big Pharma must disclose these ties if they opine about national strategies for electronic cigarette regulation because these ties represent a conflict of interest. My argument was based on the premise that electronic cigarettes represent a major form of market competition with pharmaceutical cessation aids and that drug companies therefore have a financial interest in seeing electronic cigarettes squashed.Today, I reveal that this speculation about pharmaceutical financial interests in the demise of e-cigarettes was not just speculation, but it has now been confirmed.According to an article in the London Times, GlaxoSmithKline - a major player in the pharmaceutical smoking cessation industry - has lobbied vigorously on behalf of stringent electronic cigarette regulation in the European Union. Specifically, a leaked memo apparently showed that Glaxo was telling policymakers that electronic cigarettes could be a gateway to smoking and that these products should be regulated as medicines, not as a type of nicotine or tobacco product.According to the article: "One of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies has warned lawmakers that electronic cigarettes could act as a “gateway to tobacco”. The leaked correspondence from GlaxoSmithKline, whose nicotine patches, gums and lozenges are being undermined by the burgeoning e-cigarette market, reveals the opposition from the pharmaceutical industry to impending regulation of e-cigarettes across the European Union. The pharmaceutical industry wants medicines licences to be mandatory for e-cigarettes, as they are for nicotine products. Instead, the EU is set to introduce a system in which e-cigarette companies can opt in for medicines regulation or be regulated in a similar way to traditional cigarettes."Christopher Snowdon reported the details of the story here back in February. He wrote:"This is a blatant attempt at rent-seeking by an obvious vested interest. We know that the pharmaceutical industry has been lobbying hard to hamper the growth of e-cigarettes so it comes as no surprise to find Glaxo using the tired old gateway argument. The truth is that e-cigarettes will only "seriously disadvantage" the NRT market if they work better as quitting aids. In my experience—and the experience of countless other people—e-cigarettes are much better substitutes for smoking. If they were really a "gateway" to smoking, e-cigarettes would be good for companies like Glaxo as they would create more smokers (NRT companies need there to be smokers just as much as cigarette companies do)."Snowdon also noted that the UK National Smoking Cessation Conference was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. He wrote:"As usual, both these companies are main sponsors of the conference—apparently there is no problem having corporations that are vociferously opposed to the most promising development in smoking cessation paying for a conference about smoking cessation." The Rest of the StoryFinancial interests in Big Pharma must now be recognized as conflicts of interest for any organization or individual who is offering opinions about national strategy, policy, or regulations regarding electronic cigarettes. Therefore, the authors of all scientific articles regarding electronic cigarettes must disclose any financial interests with pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, organizations must also disclose any financial ties to Big Pharma when they offer recommendations regarding electronic cigarette policy.Unfortunately, there have been numerous violations of this disclosure standard, as several commentators on electronic cigarette policy have failed to disclose their Big Pharma ties in published articles. I have highlighted many of these stories on my blog, but for one demonstrative example, see my column on failed disclosures by an individual and an organization in the New York Times debate on electronic cigarettes.Another inexcusable conflict of interest is the fact that Mitch Zeller, the director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products and therefore the chief author of the proposed electronic cigarette regulations, came to the FDA directly from a consulting job with GlaxoSmithKline and therefore has a severe conflict of interest regarding the electronic cigarette issue.Moreover, several former members (and one current member) of the FDA's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee have (or have had) financial conflicts of interest with Big Pharma, and thus are not in a position to offer opinions about national tobacco product regulation in the context of this expert advisory panel.And finally, it appears that most of the national tobacco control conferences continue to be funded by pharmaceutical companies. There is no way that these conferences can be objective about smoking policy, especially regarding electronic cigarettes and smoking cessation, when they are funded by Big Pharma.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1708 Hits
  0 Comments

Tell Me What’s Your Flavor

Did you know that there's more to smoking with blu? People may congratulate you that you have quit smoking and found a healthier way. People may think that smoking is bad for the health, but the moment they would realize on the facts electronic cigarettes could bring, they would be surprised. As a matter of fact, users of this tiny device have changed their lives. Think about smoking in a closed and air conditioned room. Who would think you would be able to take a puff with freedom? Yes, this is what an e-cig can provide. Other than that, they have converted a healthier body. No matter what flavor you would choose, each bottle allows you to have the freedom you were supposed to have when you were still smoking on the conventional cigarette. Talking about flavor, there is another fact that you should know about electronic cigarettes. Most people believe that colors can tell personalities. And just as the flavors you use for your e-cig, each tells who you are. It may sound amusing, let's find out what your flavor is.The ClassicThe increasing demand of the different flavors of their electronic cigarettes didn't stop people who would still prefer to use the blu classic tobacco e-liquid. This is for the simple men and women who would not want any flavor to their cigarette. They want plain. There are just people who want nothing on their cupcake. Just as the people who prefer this flavor. All they want is classic taste and classic in every sense.MentholYou can feel the cool and morning breeze the moment you puff on the blu menthol e-liquid. There's only one word to describe the people who love this flavor – cool! As refreshing as the spearmint in this flavor, this is what you are. Even if it has a slight taste of vanilla in it, you can still recognize a person who does not take any effort at all grabbing everyone's attention. In short, they naturally stand out.NRG with TaurineIf menthol lovers are cool and sophisticated, this flavor is the opposite. Men and women who enjoy this flavor are believed to be sharp and electrifying. Since this flavor allows the user to be alive and full of energy. For those who wanted to have an adrenaline rush, this should satisfy your vaping desires.CherryFor people who wish to have excitement and adventure, this is the flavor them. The moment you enter the room, people will be captivated and be intrigued. This unique flavor enables people to tell your personality. Each drop of this cherry flavor allows you to discover more.It is interesting to know that your electronic cigarette could reflect your personality. You can spot your flavor that conforms who you are. On the other hand, you can always try another flavor that would suit your taste buds. It's amazing when people decide to quit smoking and decide to have a healthy life, not to mention discover more about themselves and their friends through these electronic cigarette flavors.Original author: Wilbur
  1954 Hits
  0 Comments

Modest good news on smokeless tobacco use


by Carl V Phillips I’m back.  I’ll start with something quick and easy and try to dive into the backlog of difficult topics shortly. The CDC has belatedly reported some statistics on U.S. smokeless tobacco (ST) use from the 2000s. … Continue reading →Original author: Carl V Phillips
  1488 Hits
  0 Comments

IN MY VIEW: Why Electronic Cigarette Flavors Probably Prevent Youth from Taking Up Smoking

Recently, Stan Glantz and colleagues called for a ban on electronic cigarette flavorings. Other anti-smoking groups have also urged the FDA to implement a ban on the use of flavors in electronic cigarettes. I have already explained why such an intervention makes no sense because it essentially represents a ban on electronic cigarettes, prevents brand differentiation, and greatly decreases the appeal of these products, thus forever protecting the market share of tobacco cigarettes. Today, I explain why the flavors in electronic cigarettes probably play a role in deterring youth smoking. Thus, I provide another argument for why the FDA should not ban electronic cigarette flavors.The Rest of the StoryThe argument being made by the CDC, as well as many other anti-smoking groups and advocates, is that electronic cigarettes are a gateway to youth smoking. In other words, youth who have never smoked before are going to try electronic cigarettes, become addicted to nicotine, and then move on to tobacco cigarette smoking.This argument might have some plausibility if electronic cigarettes were "starter cigarettes." In other words, if electronic cigarettes were much milder versions of tobacco cigarettes, with milder tobacco flavor, then it might be expected that youth could advance from an electronic cigarette to a real one. Electronic cigarettes with tobacco or menthol flavoring, for example, might be expected to get kids used to the taste of a tobacco cigarette and thus to promote cigarette smoking initiation.However, is the same thng true of a flavored e-cigarette?Based on the experience of vapers, there is strong and compelling evidence that the flavors lead vapers away from tobacco taste, not towards it. Vapers consistently report that the use of the flavors helps them lose their taste for tobacco and makes it more difficult for them to return to cigarette smoking.One would expect a similar experience with youth e-cigarette experimenters. Once they get used to the sweet flavors of electronic cigarettes, it is hard to fathom that they could then be drawn to the harsh taste of tobacco. It is difficult to imagine a youth switching from a gummy bear flavored e-cigarette to a Marlboro.In fact, it could well be that flavored electronic cigarette use inhibits youth smoking by making it much less likely that a youth is going to enjoy his or her first experience with real tobacco cigarettes. The oral and respiratory tracts that are used to fruit or candy flavors are most likely not going to be able to tolerate or enjoy the harsh taste and sensation of a tobacco cigarette. For this reason, it is entirely conceivable that the use of electronic cigarettes might actually be a deterrent to cigarette smoking.However, this deterrent effect - if present - depends upon the availability of flavored electronic cigaretttes. If only tobacco and menthol e-cigarettes were to be allowed on the market, this deterrent effect could no longer take place.For this reason, the FDA should think long and hard before jumping into a decision to ban the flavors in electronic cigarettes. It is possible that despite encouraging experimentation among some nonsmoking youth, flavored electronic cigarettes may actually have a net positive effect on the public's health by serving as an overall deterrent to youth smoking.In the absence of data demonstrating that flavored electronic cigarettes are serving as a gateway to youth smoking, there is no public health justification for a ban on flavors in electronic cigarettes, and such a measure could cause more public health harm than good.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1559 Hits
  0 Comments

Senators warn of e-cigarette health risk

WASHINGTON - Eight Senators are calling on the Food and Drug Administration to examine new research suggesting that some electronic cigarettes can produce dangerous carcinogens similar to those from traditional cigarettes.The lawmakers want regulators to protect e- cigarette users and those nearby from cancer-causing vapors apparently produced by high-powered nicotine devices, known as tank systems. Two studies first reported by the New York Times suggest these devices get hot enough to produce toxic chemicals like formaldehyde, a carcinogen also found in cigarettes.The findings raise new questions about the safety of e- cigarettes, which some experts have promoted as safer alternatives to cigarettes.Last month the FDA said it would begin regulating the rapidly expanding e-cigarette field. But the FDA's proposal focuses mainly on e-cigarette ingredients, not the resulting vapors.Original author: Barry
  1924 Hits
  0 Comments

E-cigarette pioneers smoked out by American rival in £62m deal

TWO entrepreneurs behind a leading electronic cigarette brand have agreed to sell the business to an American rival for $104m (£62m). Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation is paying Art Devlin and Tony Jones a mixture of cash and shares for Ten Motives, which they set up less than six years ago. It is the third acquisition of a British e-cigarette operation made by Victory in the past six months. In December it bought Vapestick for $70m, and followed that deal with the purchase of rival brand VIP for more than $50m. The Sunday Times revealed in February that the Cheshire-based Ten Motives had hired adviser BDO to explore options for the company after receiving a number of takeover approaches. Devlin, a former telecoms executive who has worked for companies including Cable & Wireless, started the business after trying e-cigarettes himself. After a week, it struck him that he hadn’t succumbed toOriginal author: Margrett
  1730 Hits
  0 Comments

E-Cig Marketing: Why prevent fires now when you can snuff them later?

Fire proof e-cig charging bag
Fire proof e-cig charging bag description

Working in this industry, you can probably imagine the sheer amount of marketing and sales emails we get each day from small companies looking to connect with a bigger brand.

Continue reading
  2368 Hits
  0 Comments

Glantz and Colleagues Essentially Call for a Ban on Electronic Cigarettes: Banning Flavors Would Ban All Existing E-Cigarettes

Stan Glantz and several colleagues have submitted a comment to the FDA calling for a complete ban on the use of flavors in electronic cigarettes. The authors write: "FDA should immediately under the current rulemaking establish a product standard prohibiting flavors in e-cigarettes... ."The Rest of the StoryThe rest of the story is that Glantz and colleagues are essentially calling for a ban on all existing electronic cigarettes. Why? Because every electronic cigarette contains flavors. In fact, the presence of flavors is the only distinguishing characteristic of different brands of e-liquids or cartridges.The ingredients of virtually every electronic cigarette liquid on the market are:1. Nicotine2. Propylene glycol and/or glycerin3. FlavorsThat's it! That's basically all there is.For example, let's take a look at the ingredient list for some of the major e-cigarette brands on the market:VUSE: nicotine, PG, VG, water, flavoringsBlu: nicotine, PG, VG, water, citric acid, flavoringsMark Ten: nicotine, PG, VG, flavoringsV2: nicotine, PG, flavoringsLOGIC: nicotine, PG, water, flavoringsNJOY: nicotine, PG, VG, flavoringsVirtually every electronic cigarette consists of nicotine, PG and/or VG, and flavorings, plus or minus a little water and perhaps citric acid. It is the flavor that makes the brand. In most cases, even the "tobacco"-flavored electronic cigarettes contain flavorings. It's easy to see that a ban on flavors is essentially a ban on electronic cigarettes. It would ban virtually every electronic cigarette currently on the market. Moreover, it would mean that there could only be one type of electronic cigarette liquid, which would have to contain just nicotine and propylene glycol and/or glycerine, and there would be no way for different liquids to distinguish themselves. The product would completely lose its appeal to smokers and the cigarette market would be protected forever.Such a regulatory action would remove the ability of companies to market their products and would eliminate the taste and appeal of the product, handing the entire cigarette category over to Big Tobacco.In my opinion, a ban on flavors in electronic cigarettes would completely destroy the electronic cigarette market. If the FDA is going to ban the flavors in e-cigarettes, then it might as well just ban the product entirely.Why would public health practitioners like Dr. Glantz and his colleagues support an action that will end the great electronic cigarette experiment and permanently hand the entire cigarette market over to Big Tobacco?If any of my readers can find out, please let me know because it is baffling to understand why a long-time anti-smoking advocate like Stan would want to protect cigarettes from the most serious competition they have ever faced. If this flavoring ban is enacted, Stan will have the rare role of being not only the hero of the tobacco control movement but the hero of the cigarette promotion movement as well.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1515 Hits
  0 Comments

Nicotine/Tobacco Research and Policy Experts Endorse Tobacco Harm Reduction in Letter to World Health Organization

Fifty-three tobacco research and policy experts from 15 countries today endorsed many of the tobacco harm reduction principles that I have advocated for 20 years. In a widely publicized (here) open letter (available here) to Dr. Margaret Chan, director of the World Health Organization, they declared:“Tobacco harm reduction is part of the solution, not part of the problem. It could make a significant contribution to reducing the global burden of non-communicable diseases caused by smoking, and do so much faster than conventional strategies. If regulators treat low-risk nicotine products as traditional tobacco products and seek to reduce their use without recognising their potential as low-risk alternatives to smoking, they are improperly defining them as part of the problem.” Just as I have done before (here), the experts warn that harsh regulation of e-cigarettes could have the unintended effect of protecting cigarettes: “On a precautionary basis, regulators should avoid support for measures that could have the perverse effect of prolonging cigarette consumption.Policies that are excessively restrictive or burdensome on lower risk products can have the unintended consequence of protecting cigarettes from competition from less hazardous alternatives, and cause harm as a result. Every policy related to low risk, non-combustible nicotine products should be assessed for this risk.” The letter’s signatories also endorse a tax strategy that I have promoted for many years (here):“The tax regime for nicotine products should reflect risk and be organised to create incentives for users to switch from smoking to low risk harm reduction products. Excessive taxation of low risk products relative to combustible tobacco deters smokers from switching and will cause more smoking and harm than there otherwise would be.” The letter points to the enormous public health gains that are possible with tobacco harm reduction:“The potential for tobacco harm reduction products to reduce the burden of smoking related disease is very large, and these products could be among the most significant health innovations of the 21st Century – perhaps saving hundreds of millions of lives.”It is encouraging to see such widespread international support for my long-held positions.Original author: Leanora
  1557 Hits
  0 Comments

E-cigarettes debate catching fire

JOHNSTOWN — As debate ignites over the burgeoning electronic cigarette industry and a regulatory crackdown looms, former smokers using the handheld vaporizers to kick rolled tobacco, as well as those trying to keep kids safe in light of aggressive marketing and a seemingly lawless distribution framework, are huffing and puffing on both sides of the argument.The upcoming battle for the mainstream acceptance and fostering of e-cigarettes will likely hinge on politics, said Holly Loupe, co-operator of locally owned e-cigarette store Vape Vibe LLC. She and her husband, Brennan, company president, opened their newest location in the East Hills Plaza, Richland Township, last month.Loupe said Vape Vibe’s role is educating consumers. That’s evidenced by the average transaction time, which is around 20 minutes, she said. Buyers learn how to clean, refill and keep the product from being damaged. But they get more than just a rundown of how the thing works – they gain insight into the technology and nicotine-infused “juice” from the vaping enthusiasts on staff.“There were some barriers in the beginning, mostly because of bad experiences from bad purchases,” she said.More often than not, she said, retailers – especially fly-by-night online “vape” stores – won’t provide customers the information they need to get the most out of it, or vape safely.“It was very time-consuming. It took us a lot of time to really explain to people how to use the product and help them use it appropriately,” she said.Salespeople will even take follow-up calls from customers to help them with upkeep issues or give them a refresher on the device.“There’s so much that the public is unaware of as to how they operate. We really gear ourselves as a full-support vaporizer shop,” she said.Reports of faulty or hazardous equipment and easy access to minors are just some of the many reasons the U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration is beginning to clamp down on the industry. Explosive and emergent growth in the past few years has caused Mitch Zeller, the FDA’s director of tobacco products, to dub the vape industry as the “wild, wild west.”“We have e-cigarettes that are exploding in car chargers, e-cigarettes that are exploding in wall sockets at home when people try to recharge them. We have e-cigarette users who are saying, ‘This is the greatest thing that I ever had. It has helped me get off cigarettes.’ ... We have a doubling of the number of middle and high school kids who used the e-cigarettes between 2011 and 2012,” he told “PBS NewsHour” in April, around the time the FDA released its new regulatory proposal for public comment.“It’s going in all different directions. And there’s absolutely no regulation of manufacture, sale or distribution of these products.”Subpar merchandise – and the distributors who sell it – is one reason why there’s such mixed opinion on e-cigarette safety, Loupe said. Zeller agreed it’s a state of “buyer beware.”Loupe said all of the Vape Vibe merchandise is tested before it goes on the floor. It also gets a 14-day warranty. They’ve even dropped vendors that have high rates of manufacturer defects.She said that more often than not, malfunctions boil down to user error, personal damage and – coming full circle – a lack of knowledge in properly using the product.“We haven’t had any issues with any of our batteries for people who operate their equipment appropriately,” she said.But who’s thinking of the children? There is no federal law currently in place that prohibits the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, although most states have their own restrictions. In spite of that, Loupe said, retailers usually classify them as tobacco products anyway, so the ban is informal, but there all the same.Recent media reports have highlighted the myriad enticing flavors of e-cigarette liquid as a way to draw in youths.Vape Vibe is working on offering somewhere around 60 flavors, including cotton candy, banana nut bread and goji melonberry. Many of those are produced by Vape Vibe at a certified laboratory.But why would fruit flavors be "kids only?" Loupe said she doesn’t see why adult taste buds should have to suffer.“Do you like orange soda? Do you like raspberry tea? It’s the same thing,” she said. “Adults like options just like anybody else does. When they switch to something pure, they don’t want it to taste bad.”The marketing, whether geared toward kids or not, is there. Because the e-cigarette ads are not technically selling tobacco, they can also go places Marlboro and Camel can’t, like television.According to an April study published in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Nielsen TV ratings data show youth exposure to e-cigarette TV ads rocketed over 250 percent from 2011 to 2013. More than three-quarters of those ads appeared on cable networks and were reportedly for a single e-cigarette brand.But when all is said and done, is it really healthier? Study data included in the FDA’s recent regulatory proposal show that while e-cigarette vapor still contains toxicants and known carcinogens, the quantity is “significantly less than those in tobacco cigarettes and tobacco smoke and similar to those contained in nicotine-replacement therapies.”Further study into smoking cessation by JAMA Pediatrics showed in March that tobacco smokers who tried e-cigarettes at least once were more likely to quit tobacco within the next year. It even ups the abstinence rates for regular smokers.Dr. Matt Masiello of Windber Research Institute said there still hasn’t been enough time to properly study e-cigarettes. But they’re on the market all the same and being pushed as recreation, although they lack any clinical or federal certification. That’s something he would admonish.“It’s controversial,” he said. “It really comments on our market-driven approach to health-related issues.“With that being said, the studies really are not out there yet to determine completely whether we should be concerned about these e-cigarettes. ... From a public health perspective, there’s really no clear sign that it’s beneficial.”Tell that to Zeller.“If we could get all of those people to completely switch all their cigarettes to noncombustible cigarettes, it would be good for public health,” he said last month during a hearing on e-cigarettes.He said there are currently dozens more studies underway at the administration.But Masiello said those studies only explore the issue from a fiscal perspective, and not from a health perspective.“(E-cigarette makers’) intent is not necessarily positive. It’s recreational,” he said. “Whether it’s going to help or hurt the process of reducing the smoking rate is really up for grabs.“(More studies are) going to bring us down the path of spending more money on a market-driven product, rather than something important, like lung cancer.”Justin Dennis is a multimedia reporter for The Tribune-Democrat. Follow him on Twitter at @JustinDennis.Original author: Luisa
  1757 Hits
  0 Comments

E-Cigarettes in the Media: Do e-cig ads target children or irresponsible parents?

ad1
ad3
ad2

Recently, ABC News posted a story stating e-cigarette advertising targets kids. In the article, it stated Research Triangle Institute International found from 2011 to 2013, e-cigarette TV advertisements that reached children increased by 256 percent, and those that reached young adults increased by 321 percent.

Continue reading
  2898 Hits
  0 Comments

GSK E-Mail Proves Pharma Industry Is Lobbying to Get E-Cigarettes Stringently Regulated

If there was ever any doubt that Big Pharma is doing everything in its power to stop increasingly popular electronic cigarettes from competing with their own smoking cessation products, this recently revealed e-mail written by a Glaxo Smith Kline vice-president to SANCO (the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health & Consumers) puts those doubts to rest.The email conversation between Sophie Crousse, the Brussels-based vice president of European public affairs for GSK’s consumer health-care division, and Dominik Schnichels, of SANCO, was made public last week through a freedom of information request made to the health and consumer affairs division of the European Commission, according to Bloomberg. It shows the pharmaceutical giant’s desire to see electronic cigarettes regulated as medicinal products, just like other nicotine replacement therapy products on the market. “We believe in responsible and proportionate regulation for all nicotine-containing products as medicinal products,” Crousse writes in an email dated October 30. “We believe in a single access system, without differentiation in clinical/regulatory and distribution advantages provided only to e-cigarettes that are not similarly provided to NCPs specifically intended to help people reduce and quit smoking. We believe devices that put nicotine in the human body need to be held to a single, consistent high standard of quality.”To better get GSK’s point across, Crousse also included a bullet-point list of reasons why e-cigarettes should be regulated as medicinal products and not as general products, as well as a number of reasons why the EU shouldn’t have a two-tier regulatory system. Glaxo Smith Kline believes only medicinal products legislation can ensure that the most robust safety and quality standards are applied to NCPs, that it’s the only one that ensures that there is a penalty system in place for manufacturers and marketing authorization holders that do not comply with quality and safety standards and that it provides the most appropriate labeling of the risks and benefits associated with NCP use.Glaxo claims -cigarettes should not be classified as general products for several reasons, including that a simple notification system for marketing NCPs is not enough to confirm the safety and efficacy of these products and that General Products Legislation does not provide enough safeguards corresponding to the health risk category of nicotine and other chemical substances contained in electronic cigarettes. Furthermore, categorizing electronic cigarettes as “lifestyle products” excludes representation of their function as a smoking cessation aid, which leaves consumers unaware of the risks and benefits of switching from smoking to NCPs. “Allowing e-cigarettes to be marketed as tobacco/consumer products without any health claims would potentially open a gateway to nicotine addiction and encourage wider nicotine usage,” the email reads.You can read the full list of arguments put together by Glaxo Smith Kline, here.GSK also sought assurances that the revised tobacco products directive will apply to e-cigarettes already on the market and ensure a ban on advertising, according to an analysis of Article 18 of the TPD by the pharmaceutical company, which was also shared with two other major nicotine replacement therapy product manufacturers, Johnson&Johnson and Novartis. According to Caroline Almeida, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey-based Johnson&Johnson, her company  is also “strongly in favor of” regulating all non-tobacco nicotine products, including e-cigarettes, as medicines. “This is the best way to ensure all non-tobacco nicotine products are advancing public health by means of effective, high-quality and safe products,” Almeida added.In the published emails, Glaxo Smith Kline vice-president, Sophie Crousse admits to meeting with a certain Member of the European Parliament (whose name was not disclosed) after the ENVI vote in July, and sending her company’s analysis of the revised tobacco products directive‘s Article 18 to “all Member States representatives in Brussels” ahead of the Council meeting of October 31st.Simon Steel, a spokesman for London-based Glaxo Smith Kline, confirmed the company’s position in an e-mail statement: “Safety is our number one priority and we support the smoker’s right to choose from a selection of products that have well established safety and efficacy profile in helping them quit smoking. All nicotine-containing products including e-cigarettes should be reviewed and regulated to the same standard of safety.”It’s clear that Big Pharma has it in for electronic cigarettes, and after learning that e-cigarettes are severely affecting nicotine replacement therapy sales, I can say I understand their motives. That doesn’t mean they’re right in their judgement of the situation. Most of their arguments can easily be contested, and actually have been by reputed health scientists like Professor Riccardo Polosa, in his recent paper, Achieving Appropriate Regulations for Electronic Cigarettes“. Ultimately, it’s all about the money, but you probably knew that already…- See more at: http://vaperanks.com/gsk-e-mail-proves-pharma-industry-is-lobbying-to-get-e-cigarettes-stringently-regulated/#sthash.NfRWYGKh.dpufPosted by: Vranks GSK E-Mail Proves Pharma Industry Is Lobbying to Get E-Cigarettes Stringently RegulatedOriginal author: Daren
  1610 Hits
  0 Comments

Safety of electronic cigarettes and the Loch Ness Monster

This is the famous “Surgeon’s Photograph,” showing a monster that allegedly lives in the lake Loch Ness in Scotland and is often cheerfully called by its nickname, Nessie. Despite this picture and several pretended sightings, there is no genuine evidence for the existence of Nessie.  The scientific community considers the monster as a modern-day myth and explains sightings as misidentifications of more mundane objects, […]

Continue reading
  1598 Hits
  0 Comments

Safety of electronic cigarettes and the Loch Ness Monster

This is the famous “Surgeon’s Photograph,” showing a monster that allegedly lives in the lake Loch Ness in Scotland and is often cheerfully called by its nickname, Nessie. Despite this picture and several pretended sightings, there is no genuine evidence for the existence of Nessie.  The scientific community considers the monster as a modern-day myth and explains sightings as misidentifications of more mundane objects, […]

Continue reading
  799 Hits
  0 Comments

E-cigarette TV ads reaching more kids, teens, study finds

Lindsay LowePosted: Tuesday, June 3, 2014, 8:29 AM Cigarette advertisements have been banned from American TV since 1970, but e-cigarette commercials are now targeting an increasing number of kids and young adults.That’s according to a new study, printed in the journal Pediatrics, which found a dramatic increase in the number of e-cigarette commercials airing on young-adult-friendly networks including Comedy Central and VH1.In fact, the number of e-cigarette ads that reached children increased over twofold since 2011, and around 80 percent of those ads were for one e-cigarette brand, Blue eCigs.E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that simulate the experience of smoking by releasing a nicotine vapor.“Researchers have yet to determine the direct health effects posed by inhalation of the vaporized chemical constituents of e-cigarettes,” says Pediatrics, adding, however, that “studies suggest that exposure to nicotine has deleterious effects on the brain during youth and young adulthood.”E-cigarettes could act as a potential gateway to other forms of tobacco, researchers say.“The rise in e-cigarette use among youth aged 12 to 17 years poses several concerns,” the study states. “E-cigarette use may lead to tobacco use, undermine social norms about tobacco, and delay cessation among cigarette smokers. It is unknown whether e-cigarette use increases youth risk for nicotine addiction or serves as a gateway, increasing risks that youth will transition to using other tobacco products.”What do you think about e-cigarette ads appearing on youth-friendly TV networks? Tell us in the comments!View the original at Parade or follow us on Twitter, Facebook or Google+Original author: Luisa
  1758 Hits
  0 Comments

Northampton Board of Health Positions Itself for Hypocrite of Year Award

Last week, the Northampton (MA) Board of Health enacted regulations to strengthen its smoke-free air law. Specifically, the Board of Health extended the smoking ban to include: (1) all public parks and athletic fields; (2) all private clubs; and (3) the use of e-cigarettes in all public places, including parks.It may sound like a strong, courageous action from a Board of Health that is being guided by the solid, consistent principle that all nonsmokers should be protected from exposure to secondhand smoke, period.The Rest of the StoryNot exactly.While the Board of Health was "courageous" enough to ban smoking at all private clubs, it was not "courageous" enough to similarly ban smoking at the city's own public club -- the Garden House Banquet Hall at Look Park.Hidden in the regulations is an exemption that allows for a designated smoking area at the Garden House Banquet Hall, even though that area is located in Look Park, which is a municipal park at which the regulations supposedly ban smoking.In other words, this is a special exemption put in place for what are clearly political, rather than public health purposes.And what might those political purposes be?Well, consider that by banning smoking at all private clubs but creating an exemption for the city's Banquet Hall, it could potentially establish a competitive advantage for the city-owned facility over private facilities in competition for business from people looking for venues for celebrations.Fortunately, the fine print in the regulations did not escape the attention of the ACLU, which is challenging this special interest exemption.The ACLU is also challenging the inclusion of electronic cigarettes in the regulations, as it seems absurd to ban the use of e-cigarettes in all parks, given the lack of any evidence that vaping in a park poses any substantial public health threat.The Northampton Board of Health may not have created public health regulations that have any consistency or science base. However, they have created an excellent entry for the 2014 Hypocrisy of the Year Award.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1478 Hits
  0 Comments