Click here for the actual journal entry http://www.ajpm-online.net/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE3013.pdf

In a new report that bucks the concerns raised by the Food and Drug Administration, a Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) researcher concludes that electronic cigarettes are much safer than real cigarettes and show promise in the fight against tobacco-related diseases and death.

The review, which will be published online ahead of print this month in the Journal of Public Health Policy, is the first to comprehensively examine scientific evidence about the safety and effectiveness of electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, said Michael Siegel, professor of community health sciences at BUSPH. The battery-powered devices provide tobacco-less doses of nicotine in a vaporized solution.

“Few, if any, chemicals at levels detected in electronic cigarettes raise serious health concerns,” the authors said. “Although the existing research does not warrant a conclusion that electronic cigarettes are safe in absolute terms and further clinical studies are needed to comprehensively assess the safety of electronic cigarettes, a preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products.”

The report reviewed 16 laboratory studies that identified the components in electronic cigarette liquid and vapor. The authors found that carcinogen levels in electronic cigarettes are up to 1,000 times lower than in tobacco cigarettes.

“The FDA and major anti-smoking groups keep saying that we don’t know anything about what is in electronic cigarettes,” Siegel said. “The truth is, we know a lot more about what is in electronic cigarettes than regular cigarettes.”

Since coming onto the market in the United States more than three years ago, electronic cigarettes have proven to be controversial. The FDA has threatened to ban the sale of e-cigarettes and six national anti-smoking groups – the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Legacy Foundation, and Action on Smoking and Health – have also called for the removal of electronic cigarettes from the market.

Their concerns are that the FDA has not evaluated any e-cigarettes for safety or effectiveness, that the devices contain dangerous chemicals, and that they are marketed toward children. In December, however, a federal appeals court ruled that the FDA should regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products rather than as drug-delivery devices, such as nicotine-replacement patches or gum. The latter undergo much more stringent FDA regulations.

“Taking these products off the market would force thousands of users to return to cigarette smoking,” Siegel said. “Why would the FDA and the anti-smoking groups want to take an action that is going to seriously harm the public’s health? The only ones who would be protected by a ban on e-cigarettes are the tobacco companies, as these new products represent the first real threat to their profits in decades.”

The report also reviews preliminary evidence that electronic cigarettes can be effective in suppressing the urge to smoke, largely because they simulate the act of smoking a real cigarette. E-cigarettes might also offer an advantage over traditional nicotine delivery devices, the authors argue, because smoking-related stimuli alone have been found capable of suppressing tobacco abstinence symptoms for long periods of time.

The report was co-authored by Zachary Cahn, a graduate student in the Department of Political Science at UC Berkeley.

Siegel, MD, has 25 years of experience in the field of tobacco control and claims no financial interest in e-cigarettes.

The report can be accessed on the Journal of Public Health Policy website.

For more information on Michael Siegel, please visit sph.bu.edu/mbsiegel.

Founded in 1976, Boston University School of Public Health offers master’s and doctoral-level education in a wide variety of public health concentrations. For more information, visit sph.bu.edu

Report taken from http://sph.bu.edu/insider/index.php/Recent-News/evidence-suggests-e-cigs-safer-than-cigarettes-researcher-claims.html

It’s no mystery that cigarettes are slowly, but surely killing every individual that consumes them. Any serious health problem that arises – be it lung cancer, heart disease or emphysema – will undoubtedly cause regret for having smoked so many for so long. Hindsight takes over and a person will lament how they “should’ve quit” years ago. With the advent of electronic cigarettes, or E-cigs, a person may take a proactive role against the perils of cigarette smoking. There is a solution after all.

For some time now, the government has been taking measures to make smoking appear less attractive in a social environment, or to raise awareness of the harmful effects: no smoking indoors, tax hikes, limited advertising placements and various warnings of the label of packs. But most of these are barely noticed by the average smoker, and oftentimes the smoker simply does not care. A short-term satisfaction from the pull of a butt trumps the danger of a long-term health risk. But it’s difficult to quit. In fact, it’s downright impossible for some. That is, until now.

A safer alternative to smoking has come about with the advent of the electronic cigarette. This isn’t just a new fad, or a recent trend that will rise and fall, and eventually fade as most trends are wont to do. Improvements in technological areas of the electronic cigarette has produced fierce competition in the industry, allowing a higher quality in product and better control on the e-liquid, the producer of the vapors. And to imagine the possibility that all of this time, effort and money is being poured into an alternative to smoking, albeit it safe one, is inspiring to the millions of smokers all across the globe. If you’re serious about quitting then E-cigs are a serious option to consider.

Personally, I have to side with California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, when he said:

“[...] If adults want to purchase and consume these products with an understanding of the associated health risks, they should be able to do so [...]”

This is in regards to his vetoing a bill that otherwise would’ve banned the sales of E-cigs in the state of California, the only state currently attempting to outlaw the use of the device. My question is this: why is something less harmful than cigarettes being fought when cigarettes themselves are still being sold behind the counter of every pharmacy, grocery store, bar, bowling alley and gas station in America? How can something that would ease the transition from being classified as a Smoker to a Non-Smoker be fought with such vigor and resentment? This device is capable of saving lives and giving a person back their health, and therein lies the answer: if you’re healthy and smoke free, how much money are you spending on cigarettes, higher insurance premiums and frequent medical bills? Less, less and even less. You can see why more money is being thrown at the cessation of the E-cig than is put into the actual manufacturing of cigarettes: the companies stand to lose entirely too much money, and that’s all this anti-e-cig movement is really about. It’s a political game that we participate in on a daily basis, under the guise that it’s for the betterment of our own lives. Arnold Schwarzenegger has the right idea, we should be able to make this choice for ourselves.