Report: e-cigarettes are ‘potentially carcinogenic’

[onehandle]

Source: The Local



Electronic cigarettes have come under yet more scrutiny in France with the association “60 million Consumers” raising health fears about the devices, in a new report.

Earlier this year France’s Minister for Health Marisol Touraine struck a blow against the booming industry by banning electronic cigarettes in public places as well as restricting their use to over 18s.

The report by “60 million Consumers”, released on Monday, is also unlikely to go down well with manufacturers of the e-cigarettes after concluding that “they are not as safe” as they are made out to be and are “potentially carcinogenic”.

“Electronic cigarettes are far from the harmless gadgets that they presented as,” wrote Thomas Laurenceau editor of the “National Consumer Insitute” magazine.


Read more: http://www.thelocal.fr/20130826/e-cigarettes-are-potentially-carcinogenic

[ret5hd]

1. hmmmm...wonder what msongs thinks of this development?

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Looks like traditional tobacco companies are not going away without a

fight. These e-cigs are a clear and present danger to their business and buying off a politician or two is old hat to these guys.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. +1

I credit e-cigs with helping me kick the habit. . . after that bullshit chantix (triggers R.A.), anti depressants, gum, lozenges, patches, etc. etc. Big tobacco doesn't like that it's an effective way to quitting the ciggy butts. And I'm not the only one - I was inspired by two people . . . and I've inspired 4 people to quit and stay off of nicotine with these things. nJoy added years to my life.

[AZ_lurker]

32. Agreed

I too was inspired by someone to give them a try. I am an exception in that I did not completely quit but down from pack and a half to about 5-6 per day now that I also vape. It would be a disaster if EU and UK ban these completely as they have helped so many people quit. There are no more than 6 ingredients in e-cig liquid. There ~4000 compounds in burning cigarette smoke. I'll take my chances.

[truth2power]

15. That was my first thought when reading the OP...What part do the tobacco companies

have in all this?

Next, who is funding/supporting the reports?

Furthermore, I always thought the greatest cancer risk from smoking was the tars, not so much the nicotine. I'll admit that I'm ignorant about that whole issue, though. Thankfully, I don't smoke - never did.

[SylviaD]

23. As far as I know, no study has ever shown a link between nicotine and cancer.

But no study has refuted a link either, which allows these French politicians to assert that eCigs "may be" carcinogenic.

This has the fingerprints of Big Tobacco all over it.

[pnwmom]

42. But they have with formaldehyde and cancer.

From the article linked at the OP:

However perhaps most worrying for France’s one million users of the devices was the new report's claims that, thanks to a new method of testing, they had found “carcinogenic molecules in a significant amount” in the vapour produced in the products.

“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 conventional cigarettes,” the report said.

Scientists also found traces of acrolein, a toxic molecule emmited in quantities “that exceeded the amount found in the smoke of some cigarettes.”

Traces of Acetaldehyde, another potentially toxic chemical, were also found, albeit at lower levels than conventional cigarettes and “potentially toxic” trace metals were also discovered in some of the models.

[meow2u3]

33. Sounds like Big Tobacco paid for the study

The conclusion that e-cigs may cause cancer is exactly what the tobacco companies wanted to hear. I'd take this finding with an itty-bitty grain of salt.

[winterpark]

34. My e-cig has helped me quit smoking. I'll be 1 year without a cigarette in 2 weeks.

Not one cigarette has crossed my lips in 1 year less 2 weeks. When the American cancer Society says they are cancerous then I'll listen. Who knows what money the tobacco companies are putting into this 'private enterprise'

Maybe I'll listen if they disclose their funding sources and their method of testing to come up with those results

[Tom Ripley]

17. +1000

[valerief]

36. ^^^THIS^^^

[NCagainstMcCrony]

37. Not likely

Big tobacco is buying up all the e-cig manufacturers. So I doubt your conclusion. More likely it is the holier than thou crowd like some of those here on DU who rail against e-cigs.

[KamaAina]

40. Superb username!

Welcome to DU!

[beevul]

45. No, they really aren't.

Big tobacco is buying up a few of the companies that make "cigalike" e-cigs.

"Cigalikes" are a tiny portion of the overall vape market.

[pnwmom]

41. The traditional companies have already entered the market with their own products.

So they win either way.

[tridim]

3. Life is carcinogenic.

And where is all this "presented as harmless" PR they talk about? I haven't seen any such claims.

[yoloisalie]

4. Lol

growing up there was a humor that coca cola was carcinogenic too and I bet that there is some truth to that

[caseymoz]

8. How about here?

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2551212

And referencing the OP's article:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573986-world-should-welcome-electronic-cigarette-no-smoke-why-fire

You can only look so many directions, and just because you haven't seen it yet, doesn't mean it isn't going on.

"Life is carcinogenic," makes about as much sense as saying "Life kills you." I think the second one is funnier, though.

[tridim]

9. There are plenty of articles, just no PR from the companies that make them.

At least none that I've seen.

[caseymoz]

18. And you've take an overview of company literature

to arrive at this conclusion? I bet you have. "At least none that I've ever seen," is a big qualifier if you haven't looked. You dismiss the article as trite nonsense by saying "Life is carcinogenic" and then undercut your own credibility by declaring the companies innocent of deceit, but qualify it by admitting that you may or may not have even looked. Yeah, that's unbiased.

Where did the Economist get the information for their article? At the time, no studies had been done on e-cigarettes. If it didn't have any scientific or expert source, they were informed by company marketing.

Presume this: every company lies to sell. If they have a product like a recreational drug, they'll tell you it's harmless. They'll even tell you it has health benefits, if they think they can get you to believe it. Look at patent medicine ads in the early 20th century. The only way they'll admit it's harmful is if the government makes them.

I think e-cigarettes probably minimize sickness and death from cigarette smoking and second hand smoke. I believe they might be a vast improvement over old-fashioned combustible cigarettes. That doesn't mean they're completely safe.

So, we're in agreement on that. Where I disagree is scoffing at people who ask, "Well, how safe are they?"

[tridim]

21. Honestly, I don't care. You read WAY too much into my post.

Sorry for wasting your time.

[Eleanors38]

6. "Potentially carcinogenic" to whom? The smoker?

Those near the smoker? Where is the data over-time? Is the e-cig any worse than being seated near a kitchen where foods are char-broiled, or heaven forbid, eaten?

All prohibitions tout concerns with public safety and health, but usually mask other motivations. The concerns here seem tenuous at best.

[caseymoz]

11. Here it is simple:

Nicotine is carcinogenic. It stimulates and accelerates cell reproduction. If you get nicotine from any source, it's going to be carcinogenic to you. If you put nicotine in the air in aerosol form, it's carcinogenic for people in the same room.

But you have to weigh things. Alcohol is carcinogenic, too.

[yoloisalie]

14. Does that include nicotine gums and patches?

I would be curious to know what they plan on doing to nicotine gums and patches.

[caseymoz]

22. Yes, it would.

But they are heavily regulated. For example, regulations say the gum can't taste good. They don't want people hooked on the gum when it's purpose is to taper you off nicotine.

You have to weigh things, though. In the case of gum and patches, kicking cigarettes verses a dose of nicotine.

[Live and Learn]

28. Blatantly untrue. The gum comes in a variety of flavors,

including one quite similar to Juicy Fruit.

[caseymoz]

63. And they still don't taste good.

Just because they say that on the pack doesn't mean it tastes like juice fruit. And yes, I've tried the gum and know.

[Eleanors38]

30. Yep, that char-broiled steak did it!

[jtuck004]

35. E-cigarettes do not ALL contain nicotine. Just a fact.

Many do, but not all, so I would really like to see a study published in a reputable journal that speaks to that. And while there may be some risk from anything else they put in them, I would like to know how they control for the millions of tons of pollutants we put out in the air every day from other sources.

Not disagreeing with you on the nicotine, but it's not always a factor.

[caseymoz]

64. Wrong. In fact no e-cigarette contains nicotine.

The cartridges that you buy contains the drug. So your statement is immediately absurd.

I suppose you can buy cartridges that contain no nicotine, but if so, this conversation doesn't apply.

[jtuck004]

67. $6.99. No Nicotine. No cartridge.

But maybe you don't get out much.

[caseymoz]

69. Or maybe I know a ripoff when I hear it.

Because you definitely don't. $6.99 ??? Let me sell you some bottled water.

That's a fact ignoramus can know and while a genius doesn't have to. All that means is, I don't smoke. Is that what you're laughing at?

Find an eighth grader to entertain. You're on ignore.

[Turborama]

38. The information about nicotine as a carcinogen is inconclusive

EFFECTS OF CHRONIC OR REPEATED EXPOSURE: Nicotine is a teratogen (capable of causing birth defects). Other developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity risks are unknown. The information about nicotine as a carcinogen is inconclusive.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/EmergencyResponseCard_29750028.html#

[caseymoz]

65. Government weasel words.

How long did it take the government to declare cigarettes were hazardous? Nicotine action at the cellular level has long indicated that it's a carcinogen.

http://whyquit.com/pr/041812.html
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/1/1.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511591
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/2000/158-18/15818-08.pdf

et al . . .

Put nicotine and carcinogen into Google, and you get thousands of hits pointing to studies "suggesting" that nicotine is carcinogenic.

Of course, like Global Warming, there's "no real proof." But if you assume that it is, your chances of being wrong are much lower than if you bet the other way, and the rewards/consequences are skewed in one direction, too.

[Turborama]

66. Despite your weasel words, your problem is that you stated this definitively above

And, as I pointed out and as you re-affirmed, it has not been definitively proven.

[caseymoz]

68. There's skepticism, and then there's denial.

There's a time where skepticism about global warming, evolution, the holocaust or nicotine step over into the perverse. That is, preserving a belief for the sake of some other psychological need, one that's irrelevant to the evidence.

Me, weasel words? The universe is probabilistic by its very nature. There's no rational reason to go either-or on an issue like this, except to mention, the odds are very, very good that nicotine is a carcinogen. Very good odds means neither true nor false. (And the word carcinogenic is probabilistic itself.) But if all rewards or penalties were equal, (they seldom are) it's never smart to take short odds.

People who want to use nicotine don't like to be bothered by the fact that's it's not completely safe, or that it's probably not the smartest thing. As much as I try to qualify my message by saying, pretty much, it's okay if you use it whether it's carcinogenic or not, people like yourself (I presume at this point that you are a smoker) want to hear instead that there's a good chance it's totally safe. Sorry, that stretches probabilities into falsehoods.

I have an alcoholic drink every other day, and I know it's carcinogenic. It also doesn't have any nutritional value. I know there are rewards, but I can't explain them, other than to say I like beer. I know I can't be totally rational, and I'm at peace with that.

Nicotine has some excellent properties and some bad ones. But don't deny the bad ones because it has some excellent ones. People don't begin to smoke because it's safe. Once they're hooked, I don't think they should fool themselves into thinking that the drug at the heart of their habit is purely beneficial and only the shit that goes with it is risky. Nature seldom gives you that simple a choice.

[Comrade Grumpy]

70. I'm not worried. I live in California, where EVERYTHING is carcinogenic.

At least according to those little plaques I see everywhere.

[caseymoz]

71. That's okay with me.

And a lot of times the plaques are true. But carcinogenic refers to probabilities. Unless you're talking about plutonium, (and post-Fukushima, you might) carcinogens have a percent chance of causing cancer over x number of years. Problem is, you have to be an actuary to figure it all out.

[askeptic]

20. Bacon is potentially carcinogenic, too

as are MANY things we encounter in daily life. This is just over the top -- big tobacco trying to impune one of the things that are affecting their sales.

Man, I wish there were some clear language coming out of this stuff instead of these attempts at more fear-mongering.

[Eleanors38]

31. Science is just another OP.

[NCagainstMcCrony]

39. Good point

The idea of anyone crying about second hand e-cig or, for that matter, real cigarette smoke while they gleefully walk down the street and inhale brake dust from automobiles is patently absurd.

[pnwmom]

43. They found formaldehyde in the vapor of some of the e-cigs,

which is a carcinogen and an asthma trigger, and which could affect second-hand smokers.

But not all of the e-cigs tested positive for this, so maybe there should be more control on the design. If they can eliminate formaldehyde and other harmful chemicals from the vapor, they should.

From the article linked at the OP:

However perhaps most worrying for France’s one million users of the devices was the new report's claims that, thanks to a new method of testing, they had found “carcinogenic molecules in a significant amount” in the vapour produced in the products.

“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 conventional cigarettes,” the report said.

Scientists also found traces of acrolein, a toxic molecule emmited in quantities “that exceeded the amount found in the smoke of some cigarettes.”

Traces of Acetaldehyde, another potentially toxic chemical, were also found, albeit at lower levels than conventional cigarettes and “potentially toxic” trace metals were also discovered in some of the models.

[Bradical79]

7. Didn't know they were presented as "harmless"

But they're certainly better than the real thing. At least for those of us tired of friends and family stinking up the home and poisoning our lungs with their addiction. And it sounds like they've been more effective at helping people quit entirely going by the people I know. Haven't met anyone who thought they were harmless either, and I've never seen them advertised as such.

[mountain grammy]

10. well, wait. What we know for sure: tobacco products cause cancer..

and electronic cigs help people quit tobacco. My husband finally did it.

[christx30]

12. As long as they only give

cancer to the user, I'm fine with it. If it's still a health hazard to people near them, they still need to be banned for use in public places, same as regular cigarettes. They don't reek like normal cigarettes do, and they don't leave a mess of butts around, and I'm glad for that. I wish more smokers used them. I wish smokers would be more responsible with their butts anyway. Put them out and throw them in the trash. I hate looking down at my bus stop and seeing those disgusting things all over the place.

[bunnies]

13. These are the same idiots who said Cannabis is more toxic than cigarettes.

Oh, but Im sure they're right on this one.

[MADem]

16. Ya know...I can say is "Well, I am not surprised."

You don't get any "tar" with plain old chewing tabaccy, either, and people who indulge in that habit have been known to get oral cancers.

And then, there is this:


http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/1/1.full

http://whyquit.com/pr/041812.html

[Drahthaardogs]

56. Wrong.

Moist snuff and snuz are not associated with increased oral cancer rates. Dry snuf and indian pan are highly carcinogenic. This is very well documented. Early studies included dry snuff and extrapolated pan relative risk to moist snuff. In laymens terms, if the risk of developing oral cancer in a non chewer is one in 120000it might be 1.2 in 120000 for snuff users

[MADem]

58. Whatever gets you through the night... nt

[Drahthaardogs]

59. As a toxicologist, SCIENCE gets me through the night.

The p-value is your friend.

[MADem]

60. I'm an astronaut.

Knock yourself out!

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/questionsaboutsmokingtobaccoandhealth/questions-about-smoking-tobacco-and-health-smokeless-alt

[Drahthaardogs]

61. You source an article that in in vitro

That specifically notes the process is not observed invivo plus they used the wrong cell line noting that oral cancers are derived from epithial cels as squamous cell carcinoma is most comon. I am on a phone but when I get home I will post some relevant literature. By the you are no astronaut but I am a toxicologist

[Drahthaardogs]

62. and on folow uo

Did you notice your link admits no increase oral risk from snus? They are also wrong. US moist snuff has had comparanle levels of tobacco specific nitroamines as snus since the early 1990s. This too is well documented in peer reviewed literature. In tobacco addicted people moist snuff saves lives. And no I do not work for big tobacco. I am a scientist for DoD.

[Kurska]

19. Horrible article, it masquarades as if it has new data

But in reality no study has been conducted and no scientific conclusions. This organization's conclusions nearly 100% conjecture with nearly no empirical backing. I wish I could go around claiming things were "potentially" things, just because no study has conclusively proved me wrong yet.

I really wish people wouldn't post such absolute trash here.

[L0oniX]

26. Yeah ...like our government is "potentially" dangerous. It's just bullshit framing. n/t

[Sunlei]

24. old nasty stinkie ciggie CORP must be losing sales. whats the matter. not enough 3rd worlders tohook

[L0oniX]

25. Use them to quit cigs then after a few months quit the E-cigs. Keep them for emergencys.

I mean how much worse is smoking real cigs? How many toxins and carcinogens are in real cigs?

[bhikkhu]

27. More research, of course, but that's a lousy article

For instance, if they found a carcinogen in three out of ten products, wouldn't they want to identify the products that contained the carcinogen so people could avoid it, and identify the ingredient that was causing the problem in the three products, and remove it?

In any case, the "pro" side needs to do better than - don't even worry because its safer than cigarettes, and people should only use it to quit. Its a whole different thing than cigarettes, and it should be made safe enough that people don't have to quit. If some ingredient is a problem it should be identified and removed, and if some mix is better it should be promoted as such.

[Live and Learn]

29. Hold on. Very misleading article.

Even the article states that the ecigs tested were much less toxic than regular cigs.

The research itself is vastly flawed since ecigs and their juices are manufactured in a variety of countries and contain differing ingredients and the research did not state what exactly was tested.

[BillyRibs]

44. Hmmmmmm,

Lets see the method of the study, who paid for it, and how it was conducted. Then I'll make a judgement.

[jmowreader]

46. As opposed to tobacco cigarettes which are "highly carcinogenic"?

I have heard e-cigs are "safer" which in no way means "perfectly safe." And traditional tobacco cigarettes are in no way "safe."

[Spirochete]

47. Better stick with regular cigarettes, then

They're so much safer

[USAF Brat]

48. Old study with faulty conclusions

See a rebuttal by a real scientist here: http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/126-a-new-study-on-chemical-analysis

[Live and Learn]

50. +1000 Excellent information!

I wish this had gotten posted near the top of the thread where those that needed to see it, would have (not that it would change their attacks on ecigs anyway).

[USAF Brat]

54. I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner

but I rarely sign in any more, although I read here daily and have been a member for many years.

Here is a new study showing no harm in second hand vapor:

http://acsh.org/2013/08/new-study-finds-no-health-concerns-in-e-cig-vapor/

[Live and Learn]

57. Thank you for the link. More good info. nt

[fujiyama]

49. "Potentially carcinogenic" is a lot better than definitely carcinogenic

Kind of a pointless study. Not only is it inconclusive, it could be potentially misleading.

And the reaction by some cities and states is incredibly idiotic too. Why ban a product which is helping people quit smoking and has no adverse effects for the general public at large? There is no second hand smoke or trash associated with them, both of which are huge positives.

If I owned a bar or restaurant, I would have no problem with patrons using them.

[cstanleytech]

52. Isnt just about everything "Potentially carcinogenic" be it exposure to the sun

to alot of the foods most of us eat not to mention the air we breath and the water we drink.

[Warpy]

51. I've pointed out they still deliver nicotine in harmful amounts

and will do all the negative things nicotine does to the human body. They're not for heart patients, especially.

Still, they're better than sucking concentrated smoke full of particulates and nasty chemicals into your lungs. In addition, people who switch over 100% often start to taper the nicotine on their own, without even really trying.

I cautiously recommend them the same way I recommend other non smoke, non tobacco products like gum, lozenges, and patches. They're all better than smoking but none of them is safe.

You want safe, breathe fresh air.

[USAF Brat]

53. Here's a study showing no harmful effects on the heart:

http://ecigarettereviewed.com/study-on-e-cigarettes-finds-no-harmful-effect-on-the-heart/

[Warpy]

55. What nicotine does is cause smooth muscle to contract

and that causes arteries to close down. If there is a micro clot traveling through any of the coronary arteries, you'd better believe nicotine has an adverse effect on the heart.

It also causes poor circulation elsewhere in the body, which is why smokers notice their hands feel cold and it's why their skin ages prematurely.

I don't think you can trust a site like that to give an unbiased opinion. Nicotine has a very well known effect on body systems. As long as it is being ingested in any form, that effect will be felt.