Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: FDA must consider regulating nicotine in e-cigarettes’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, April 19 2014 8:33 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hutterite
American Fork, UT

That same FDA could say something like 'consuming 2 litres per day of diet pepsi is carcinogenic', and you'd scream bloody murder about government interference in private liberty.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Who would do these kind of things if we shut down the FDA and the EPA and one other?

One one hand we hear that Corporate America and the free enterprise system will self regulate.

Which is it?

J in AZ
San Tan Valley, AZ

e-cigarettes have been in development for a long time. Back in the early 1990's when the idea was first proposed, the FDA tried to assert regulatory control over the devices defining them as drug delivery systems. The lobbyists for the companies developing the devices got to enough congressmen and senators that the FDA got shut down. That is why these things are not regulated.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

More nanny government?

I have a better idea, let the free market decide.

If people want to smoke let them smoke. Just like if people want to drink 100 gallons of soft drink everyday, let them. The right cried when soft drinks were being regulated. So why should e-cigarettes be any different?

AlexClark
Union City, NJ

The authors are misrepresenting several things in this editorial. First, the NIH study released last week is just getting started. The authors of the study prudently note that their initial findings are not conclusive enough to inform policy. Furthermore, the abstract is vague and only refers to "Low" and "High" nicotine concentrations. Interestingly enough, the "Low" concentration (intended to mimic the blood plasma levels of ecig users) was observed as Not Toxic nor did it damage the cells. It is the "High" concentration (like that found in a smoker) that is raising concern (yet still not conclusively linked to causing or promoting cancer). Data from poison control is also being blown out of proportion without comparison to other potentially toxic consumer goods that result in more calls, injury, and death. As for the FDA, they have repeatedly stated their intent to regulate the devices (and likely associated liquids). The process is lengthy and will require adequate time for public comment. The authors would do well to tone back the hysteria, issue a correction, and offer better information to their readers.

Owl
Salt Lake City, UT

Nicotine has many adverse effects on human physiology. Regulating it is a reasonable exercise in government power as in "…promote the general welfare…." Any substance taken in excess, such as diet Pepsi, can be harmful but nicotine is harmful taken in any amount. It is disingenuous to confuse the issues. The government can seldom protect people from themselves, but they should protect the public from those who sell harmful products be it defective car seats or eCigs.

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

The FDA is a fraud of an organization. Let the market work itself out. A 2 year old could consume any number of legal unregulated substances that would require a call to the poison control center, so its really a straw man argument being posed here.

Aaron Frazier
West Valley, UT

The Deseret should be ashamed of publishing such prohibitionist propaganda which was not fact checked and patently false.
1) “A recent study funded by the National Institutes of Health found that nicotine-laced vapor generated by these devices promoted cancer in the same way as does tobacco”. If you would have reviewed the study, it says not a single word about electronic cigarettes promoting cancer.

2) “A previous report from The Times recounted how in February, a 2-year-old girl in Oklahoma City drank a bottle of a parent’s nicotine liquid and was rushed to an emergency room.” It’s always a bad thing when a child gets a hold of a product that is not meant for consumption. More children are rushed to the hospital for toothpaste poisoning by a matter of 15 times.

3) “Companies selling these deadly products are exploiting this opportunity.” The only documented death associated with e-cigarette liquid is one man who injected it to commit suicide.

I would suggest that the Deseret begin to fact check the evidence of information before you publish the propaganda against an industry that is trying to help smokers and those around them. You should be ashamed!

Cache Kid
LOGAN, UT

One vague study, conducted on cells TAKEN FROM SMOKERS, is enough for the Deseret News to call ecigs DEADLY PRODUCTS? I expect that from the liberal New York Times, which is out to control every aspect of human behavior, but I didn't expect it to be parroted by the Deseret News. Unless, of course, the Deseret News has its own agenda, based on its ownership.

There are a plethora of PEER REVIEWED studies out that show exactly the opposite, that ecigs are VASTLY less dangerous than tobacco smoking, studies which, of course, the Deseret News and New York Times completely ignore.

It seems many news outlets pick and choose what to report based on their agenda. Deseret News is one of those, ZERO objectivity here.

The plain facts are that millions of smokers have been able to quit using e-cigarettes. The peer reviewed studies, ALL OF THEM, show that vaping is much safer than smoking.

And the continued was on e-cigarettes will end up costing smokers their lives.

pupmasterpm3
los angeles, CA

You say that "Yet so far, the FDA has not announced any plans to address the regulation of e-cigarette chemicals, marketing or distribution." This is simply not the case. The FDA has submitted its regulation proposals to the White House Office of Management and Budget for approval in October.

Cache Kid
LOGAN, UT

The last sentence in my comment should read:

"And the continued war on e-cigarettes will end up costing smokers their lives."

DN doesn't give us a way to correct spell-check errors.

h_ummer
Tremonton, UT

Owl I think you need to study the subject closter. It is the cocktail of ingredients and MAOIS in commercial tobacco which make nicotine highly addictive. It is the substance giving the subjective pleasure of smoking. Smokers smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar and toxic smoke. In a study of long-term effects of inhaled vaporised nicotine, they found no increase in mortality, in atherosclerosis or frequency of tumors in the subject rats compared with controls. http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291

Per Dr. Paul Newhouse, director of vanderbilt university's Center for Cognitive Medicine; "Nicotine by itself isn't very addictive at all. Nicotine seems to require assistance from other substances found in tobacco to get people hooked. It seems very safe even in non-smokers. In out studies, we find it actually reduces blood pressure chronically. And there were no addiction or withdrawal problems, and nobody started smoking cigarettes. The risk of addiction to nicotine alone is virtually nil.

Are you suggesting researchers and well respected Dr's have it all wrong?
Long-term effects of inhaled nicotine. [Life Sci. 1996] - Pubmed - NCBI
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Aaron Frazier
West Valley, UT

Owl and others who claim nicotine is harmful - The FDA has determined that there are no significant safety concerns with respect to long-term/recreational nicotine use. More specifically, the Agency recently published a Notice of Findings in the Federal Register indicating that the long-term use of the nicotine-containing NRT products was safe and does not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence. http://goo.gl/fM7SLH

Last year, 16 elementary school children were taken to local hospitals with a sudden illness. The 9 and 10 year-old children began vomiting after eating mints given to them by a classmate. It was later found that these mints were actually FDA approved nicotine replacement lozenges. In most states, these products are available over the counter, available online and without any form of age restriction. Where is the outrage over the unregulated packaging? Where are the calls to ban these products? http://goo.gl/FA0mMV

J in AZ
San Tan Valley, AZ

Nicotine is incredibly toxic. Only a couple of drops on your skin will kill you. When I worked on nicotine transdermal patches for a company in Salt Lake City, the safety requirements for handling it were more stringent than those for working with known carcinogens. It was the most dangerous chemical that I ever worked with. Of course these devices, and the liquids loaded into them need to be regulated.

Aaron Frazier
West Valley, UT

J in AZ - As a consumer of the product and one who has accidentally spilled over 5ml of 1.8% liquid on my hands during a careless moment, I can attest I am still alive, did not get ill nor even an elevated heart beat. The refillable liquids sold to consumers does not exceed 3.6% concentration and in Utah, the vast majority does not exceed 2.4% which is not close to the levels used at the pharmaceutical level. Based on your history, I'm sure you understand that the dose makes the poison.

In 2013, Professor Bernd Mayer from the University of Gratz performed an extensive review of available literature in an effort to identify the existing proof for defining the nicotine lethal dose in humans. He reports that the lethal level of nicotine as measured in postmortem exams was 2mg/ml of blood, corresponding to 4mg/ml of plasma. Such levels would correspond to ingesting 500-1000mg of nicotine. http://goo.gl/UyBTGE

Owl
Salt Lake City, UT

h_ummer
Tremonton, UT

Studies demonstrating the adverse metabolic effects of nicotine have been done in many animal studies. Smoking nicotine inhibits both bone and soft tissue healing. It slows fracture healing and spine fusions ih animals and humans. There is a negative effect on intervertebral disc metabolism. The addictive qualities may be open for debate although most researchers agree it is addictive. Regardless, nicotine has profound negative effects on humans. The EU has regulated eCigs as they have tobacco.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Personally -- I'm more concerned about the 2 million of us who don't smoke,
but are exposed to far worse in the inversion pollution than I am about a handful of e-cigarettes.

Let's worry about the Beam in our own eye,
before complaining about the mote in another's.

Cache Kid
LOGAN, UT

OWL, were those studies on *nicotine*, or were they on *tobacco smoke*?

Ecigs don't contain or produce the latter. I'd be interested if you could cite the studies.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments