A new study takes on claims that e-cigarettes are a healthier alternative to smoking tobacco.
As far back as 5000 BC, mankind began finding ways to smoke tobacco. It was really only a matter of time before we'd learn to administer nicotine electronically. Ladies and gentlemen, the e-cigarette era is upon us. But will it last? And more to the point, should it?
First introduced in China in 2004, and to the international market in 2007, the e-cigarette delivers that highly addictive, stimulating-yet-calming effect of smoking by heating up a liquid substance containing non-tobacco-derived nicotine. Marketed as a nebulously “healthier” and far cheaper alternative to cigarettes, my first hopeful puff off a slim white contraption by Green Smart Living sent me choking on a thick vapor that tasted of chemicals and well, nicotine. It felt anything but smart.
Though we lack any research into the long-term health risks, consumers have largely accepted the e-cigarette as the lesser of two evils: in the U.S. alone, sales are expected to reach $1 billion by the end of 2013, and $10 billion within five years. Some even predict that e-cigarette sales will surpass traditional cigarettes within the next decade.
But as investors scamper to join the promising trend, short-term research has begun to question the idea that e-cigarettes are less harmful to smokers.
Last week, the e-cigarette debate came to a rolling boil after the French association “60 Million Consumers” released a study which found traces of the toxic molecule acrolein—in amounts that far exceeded the amount found in cigarette smoke—as well as the toxic chemical acetaldehyde in some e-cigarette liquid. The study, which failed to reveal brand names, also stated: “In three cases out of 10, for products with or without nicotine, the content of formaldehyde was as much as the levels found in some cigarettes.”
While skeptics deem the latest study flawed because it heated the liquid to 1,700 degrees fahrenheit, Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products says that there is no question that e-cigarettes should be included in proposed FDA regulations, which could ban online sales as early as October.
Cigarette smoke contains over 80 carcinogenic chemicals. Yes, we should all quit. But the electronic solution may not be a solution at all. For one, the European Respiratory Annual Congress reported a significant increase in airway resistance among both smokers and non-smokers after inhaling e-cigarette mist.
Further inspection of the Green Smart Living packaging revealed that along with the non-tobacco derived dose of nicotine, I was also ingesting propylene glycol, glycerol and “flavorings” left undefined. Classified as “generally recognized as safe” by the FDA, propylene glycol is used as an antifreeze by the chemical, food and pharmaceutical industries, and it appears in both human and dog food.
“You don't know what that is doing to your lungs,” says Ray Casciari, MD, director of the thoracic oncology program at St. Joseph Hospital in Orange, California. “My experience over the past 35 years is that anything you put in the lungs has a chance of causing either damage or irritation.”
Further criticism from the medical establishment asserts that the technology only perpetuates the hand-to-mouth habit of smoking, and that there is no substantial evidence that e-cigarettes are any less habit forming than traditional cigarettes.
“Years ago, when I was getting off heroin, people used to prick themselves with needles just so they could get that Pavlovian effect,” said local musician Al Frisby, who was amused but unimpressed when I flashed my recently purchased yet disappointing device to a smokers' circle last week.
Studies have shown that nicotine is even more addictive than heroin and cocaine, but when Frisby decides to quit, he says he’ll be one of the mere 3.5 percent of smokers who, according to the American Cancer Society, go cold turkey.
“I'll just stop,” says Frisby. “I'm not going to pansy around.”
