Skip to content
Subscribe

Is There a Biased Agenda Against the Electronic Cigarette Industry?

Published:

It is very difficult to escape the subject of electronic cigarettes as their popularity around the world continues to grow. The industry continues to challenge tobacco cigarettes and regulators seem more than willing to air their opinions in public, even if they are not always backed up by reliable statistical data. This prompts the question, is there a biased agenda against the electronic cigarette industry?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has investigated the electronic cigarette industry for over two years now. There were rumors of imminent regulatory changes toward the end of 2013, but the timetable seems to have slipped yet again with very little in the way of public guidance from the FDA. There are a number of issues clouding the minds of regulators around the world, not all of which seem to be backed up statistically.

Despite the fact that the FDA has yet to announce the findings of a two-year review of the industry, many local authorities in the U.S. have already issued a number of local law changes which have outlawed the use of electronic cigarettes in public. Apparently, these changes relate to the risk of secondary smoking, although a recent study by the Department of Health Behavior at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York casts a very different light on the issue of electronic cigarettes and secondary smoking.

The report, which was co-authored by Maciej Goniewicz, compared the risk of secondary smoking when using electronic cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes. Along with measuring the nicotine content released into the local atmosphere, the research also monitored levels of carbon monoxide and an array of other organic compounds found in tobacco cigarettes.

The results were very encouraging for the electronic cigarette industry with levels of between 2.5 mg and 3.3 mg of nicotine per cubic meter of air compared to almost 32 mg for tobacco cigarettes. It was also found that while the likes of carbon monoxide and an array of other volatile compounds associated with tobacco cigarettes were detected in the smoke, there were no detectable levels produced by electronic cigarette vapor.

While governments and regulators around the world have often shied away from the issue of tobacco tax income when discussing the electronic cigarette industry, it is a valid point. Figures reported by the taxpolicycentre.org show that overall US tobacco tax income increased from $3.6 billion in 1977 to a phenomenal $17.6 billion in 2011.As we await confirmation of US electronic cigarette sales for 2013, many experts believe the US market was worth in excess of $1 billion with a worldwide market approaching $3.5 billion. This is but a fraction of the tax income created by the tobacco cigarette industry and does not even register when compared to worldwide tobacco cigarette sales.

Whether or not you agree with the regulatory standpoint of the FDA, and other regulators around the world, there is no doubt that money does talk. When you also take into account forecast growth over the next 20 years, which could see the electronic cigarette industry overtake its tobacco cigarette counterpart, we can only begin to imagine the concerns within government treasury departments around the globe.

Time and time again we have seen regulators and governments around the world state the "fact" that many people find electronic cigarettes a stepping stone to their tobacco counterparts. No government or regulator has yet to back up these claims with substantiated feedback from electronic cigarette users, often citing "experts" who themselves seem to have a biased opinion against electronic cigarettes. Indeed, there is growing evidence that many tobacco cigarette smokers are finding it very useful to switch to electronic cigarettes in the fight to reduce their tobacco intake.

When you take into account the fact that electronic cigarettes will give a tobacco cigarette smoker the nicotine hit they require, without the 4000+ toxins often associated with traditional tobacco cigarettes, why would you move onto a tobacco cigarette from an electronic cigarette?

The FDA and a variety of other public bodies in the U.S. have also cited the ongoing issue of electronic cigarette use among minors. The simple fact is that it does not require further in-depth regulating of the industry to outlaw the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors; a simple tweak of the current laws will suffice. No responsible electronic cigarette manufacturer or retailer would knowingly sell their products to a minor and therefore none of these parties have any issue with protecting the younger elements of society.

There are many issues to take into consideration when looking at the electronic cigarette industry such as taxes, health, competition, and secondary smoke -- to name a few. It is a mystery as to why the FDA is taking so long to issue its report on the electronic cigarette industry although it is worth bearing in mind that the administration did attempt to ban electronic cigarettes as "unapproved pharmaceutical products" some years ago.

We should hear from the FDA over the coming weeks although there is a feeling that this move has dragged on for too long and the ongoing momentum behind the electronic cigarette industry is building. Many electronic cigarette users in the U.S. are up in arms about a potential ban on their favorite products and indeed many are citing the tobacco cigarette companies and the influence which these giants have over politicians and medical groups.

It will be interesting to see the final ruling from the FDA although any major changes to the industry would be subject to negotiation and it is unlikely that they would come into effect immediately.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Is There a Biased Agenda Against the Electronic Cigarette Industry?

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us