What is propylene glycol? Why is it used in electronic cigarettes? Is it safe?

We are asked this question repeatedly and there is a lot of misinformation about propylene glycol and ecigarette ingredients circulating in the media. To help answer this question, we have gathered together this list of information from a number of reputable sources in one place.

What is propylene glycol?

-Propylene glycol is a clear, colorless, slightly syrupy liquid at room temperature. It may exist in air in the vapor form, although propylene glycol must be heated or briskly shaken to produce a vapor
-Propylene glycol is practically odorless and tasteless
-Propylene glycol is a chemical made by reaction of propylene oxide with water
-Propylene glycol has had an unsurpassed reputation for safe use in a wide range of consumer products, including food products, animal feed, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, as well as industrial applications
-It’s used as a stabilizer (to keep things held together, and keep them from evaporating), and to keep foods moist. It’s used in many of the foods that we eat, and the FDA deems it safe for human consumption
-Industrial grade propylene glycol is an ingredient used to make non-toxic antifreeze and deicing solutions for cars, airplanes, and boats; to make polyester compounds; and as solvent in the paint and plastics industries.

The point above needs a special note, since PG has been vilified in the media for being an ingredient in antifreeze. These reports fail to mention that they are referring to non-toxic antifreeze, giving consumers a false impression. This is a scare tactic used by the media, those who are misinformed and organizations against e-cigarettes. More information is below in the FAQ.

Propylene Glycol (PG) in e-cigarette cartridges:

-The content of the liquid solution found in most cartridges includes three primary ingredients: nicotine (except in Zero nicotine carts, of course), flavorings, water and pharmaceutical-grade propylene glycol.

-Propylene glycol is added to the ecigarette liquid solution as a vaporizable base to dilute pure, liquefied nicotine

-Because of its water-retaining properties, propylene glycol is the compound of choice for delivering atomized medications. It has been used in asthma inhalers and nebulizers since the 1950’s

-In e-cigarettes, propylene glycol allows atomization to take place at substantially lower temperatures than required for a tobacco cigarette and will also help carry / deliver the nicotine when the vapor is inhaled

-While the contents of the liquid solution found in cartridges may vary depending upon b
rands, the major ingredients usually remain the same.

Features of propylene glycol:

-Serves as a solvent
-Connects and stabilizes insoluble fluids (emulsifier)
-Helps to bind and transport other substances (excipient)
-Holds and dissolves active ingredients equally in a medium
-Attracts/holds water/moisture (hygroscopic)
-Reduces the freezing point
-Increases the boiling point
-Offers outstanding stability with high flash and boiling points

By emulsifying (mixing) active ingredients, which otherwise would not mix with one another, the propylene glycol creates a stable homogeneous fluid that will allow the intended final product, be it a face cream or shampoo, for example, to do its job.

Safety of propylene glycol:

-It has been used safely for more than 50 years, including in health-sensitive products such as food, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, where the molecule mainly serves as non-active ingredient or carrier of other substances
-Studies have proven that propylene glycol has a very low degree of toxicity
-In the body, propylene glycol is rapidly converted into lactic acid, in a similar manner to what happens with sugar (energy) in the muscles during sports

PHARMACEUTICAL GRADE PROPYLENE GLYCOL

Applications of propylene glycol:

-To carry flavors in food and drinks
-To make face creams, body lotions, deodorant-sticks, lipsticks and many other cosmetic articles soft, moist and consistent
-To stabilize foams in cosmetic and healthcare products
-To help pet and livestock feed retain its moisture and taste
-To act as a carrier of active ingredients in vaccines, cough relief syrups or gel capsules to help deliver this substances within the body for treatment and prevention of diseases

Applications of propylene glycol in cosmetics and toiletries include products in:

-Personal care: bath and shower soaps, gels, face cleansers, shaving foams, after shave, antiperspirant deodorants, roll-ons, sticks, lipsticks, fragrances, perfumes
-Skin care: hand, body and facial moisturizers, sunscreen products
-Hair care: shampoos, conditioners, styling gels
-Oral care: mouthwashes, toothpaste
-Baby care: wipes, antiseptics

Propylene glycol has been approved for use as a food additive. In direct food contact it is mainly used as:

-Solvent and carrier of flavor or color in the food and beverage manufacturing processes, to make drinks, cookies, cakes, candy
-Thickener, clarifier and stabilizer in food and beverage such as beer, salad dressings or baking products

Applications of propylene glycol as pet and cattle feed additive* include its use as a(n):

-Humectant to provide moisture and taste. ” A humectant is a substance with the ability to attract and hold water in a formulation ”
-Solvent, stabilizer and preservative to keep the feed suitable for longer use
-Additive for increased energy provision

* Not approved for use in cat food

Some Pharmaceutical applications include:

-Therapeutic drugs and medicines, such as vaccines or cough syrup
-Local anesthetics
-Antiseptics
-Vitamins and hormones

INDUSTRIAL GRADE PROPYLENE GLYCOL

Industrial propylene glycol can be used:
-As aircraft deicer, enabling safe global public transport
-In non-toxic antifreeze
-In paints and coatings, providing sustainable weather and wear protection
-In liquid detergents, supporting hygienic conditions
-As a basic building block in the production of other formable plastics such as unsaturated polyester resins (UPR) used in furniture, heavy-impact surfaces (floors, kitchen, bathroom) or windmill blades

Propylene glycol and Antifreeze:

-Antifreeze has traditionally been manufactured with ethylene glycol. This product is highly toxic and poisonous

-On the other hand, propylene glycol is used in certain types antifreeze labeled as “non-toxic antifreeze”. Because propylene glycol is considerably less toxic than it ethylene glycol counterpart, it is now used in antifreeze where ethylene glycol would be inappropriate, such as in food-processing systems or in water pipes in homes when incidental ingestion may be possible

FAQ

Has the federal government made recommendations to protect the human health?

The Food and Drug Administration has classified propylene glycol as GRAS, “generally recognized as safe,” which means that it is acceptable for use in flavorings, drugs, and cosmetics, and as a direct food additive.

Which products contain propylene glycol?

Propylene glycol is used in a large variety of every day convenience and care products, such as in cosmetics and toiletries, food, animal feed, and pharmaceuticals, as well as in a number of industrial applications.

How can I come in contact with propylene glycol?

Most people will come in contact with propylene glycol during their normal everyday life, when using personal care articles like creams, sprays, lotions, when enjoying soft drinks, sweets and other foods, or when taking medication or being vaccinated.

What happens with propylene glycol in the body?

In the body, under conditions of normal low exposure, propylene glycol is quickly metabolized and eliminated. Its metabolic pathway is comparable to that of sugar: propylene glycol is rapidly converted into lactic acid, just like what happens with sugar (energy) while exercising. The lactic acid formed by propylene glycol ingestion is then discarded by the body via the urine.

Is there a danger associated with ingestion in large quantities?

Propylene glycol is used professionally by manufacturers of consumer and industrial products, but it is not available to consumers as a pure substance. Under normal circumstances, it is impossible to ingest propylene glycol in large amounts, and exposure to propylene glycol via consumer products is extremely low. In addition, studies have shown that propylene glycol has a very low degree of toxicity. In fact, from a toxicological point of view, alcohol is actually more toxic than propylene glycol.

Can propylene glycol have negative health effects if consumed over long periods in time in small amounts?

Propylene glycol has been used safely for more than 50 years in a large variety of applications. Studies have shown that propylene glycol has a very low degree of toxicity. No negative health effects from exposure to small amounts of propylene glycol have ever been observed. The FDA has approved the use of propylene glycol in sensitive applications such as in pharmaceuticals, foods and cosmetics, and thus confirmed its safety.

Can I be sure that industrial propylene glycol will not be used for pharmaceutical applications?

The quality and purity of both industrial propylene glycol and pharmaceutical grade propylene glycol is very high. For propylene glycol intended for use in pharmaceutical applications, utmost care is placed on fulfilling specific strict rules for the production, transport and hygiene of the product to be used in sensitive applications like in food or cosmetics.

How can a deicer be used in food or in cosmetics?

Deicer (for de-icing) is not used in food or cosmetics. The different “natural” functionalities of propylene glycol make it a substance which can achieve various results. In the deicer, it is the ability to reduce the freezing point, in cosmetics the ability to dissolve, emulsify, or carry active ingredients in substances. Industrial propylene glycol is used is used for de-icing while pharmaceutical grade propylene glycol is used in cosmetics. Propylene glycol really becomes active when mixed with other ingredients and depending on what those ingredients are, different results will be achieved. Hence, deicer and cosmetics both contain propylene glycol but are mixed with different ingredients which will give way to different results.

How pure is pharmaceutical propylene glycol?

Pharmaceutical grade propylene glycol has a very high purity of more than 99.5% – which is extremely high for a chemical. However, the most important requirement to keep the degree of purity of pharmaceutical grade propylene glycol is to thoroughly respect the hygiene regulations and manufacturing standards of production, transport and further processing of the product.

Is propylene glycol safe for human health? Can it give me an allergic reaction?

It may be possible to develop an allergic reaction to propylene glycol and some individuals allergic to the product may exhibit different symptoms. However, pharmaceutical grade propylene glycol has been safely used for decades in a large variety of consumer products, including more than 4000 cosmetics and toiletry products. Over this long period of time and a large variety of products, there has been no evidence of significant adverse effects.

How likely is propylene glycol to cause cancer?

Propylene glycol does not cause cancer. The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not classified propylene glycol for carcinogenicity. Animal studies have not shown this chemical to be carcinogen.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this series. I will be uploading lots of pictures of common products I have around the house (and in your’s, as well) that have propylene glycol in them.

Sources:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1122&tid=240
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=1121&tid=240
http://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/3595.pdf
http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient.php?ingred06=705315
http://www.foodgradepropyleneglycol.com/
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=12&po=0
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/egpg/propylene/PG_Monograph.pdf
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=240
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp.asp?id=1122&tid=240
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifreeze

Originally published on the V2 Cigs blog.

Related articles

• Toxic Chemicals In Your Home – What To Look Out For (easyconsciousliving.typepad.com)
• Here’s What’s Really Lurking In Those Bottles Of Deodorant (businessinsider.com)

James, from The Ashtray Blog, has designed an interactive quiz to educate and amuse web-surfing smokers. Are you a vaping newbie, a vaping expert or a vaping master? Take the quiz to find out now!
 

The electronic cigarette has come a long way since it’s initial inception in China in early 2003.  It started small and emerged into a huge global market place and now has users all over the world. If you have not heard of it yet, the electronic cigarette is a tar free, odorless, carbon monoxide free, tobacco free, ash free, cost effective way to get your nicotine cravings without having to burn and inhale tobacco smoke. Instead it utilizes a vaporization technology that creates a substance identical to smoke, and most users cannot tell the difference and some prefer the vapor over smoke.

It all began when a researcher named Hon Lik set out to create the worlds first acceptable smoking alternative.  Hon, being a smoker himself, was motivated by the loss of his father who passed away due to lung cancer from smoking tobacco cigarettes.  Hon’s father smoked over 2 packs of cigarettes a day and Hon used to do the same. Hon knew that if he continued on his path of smoking tobacco daily then he would eventually suffer the same fate as his father.  It was time for him to quit smoking cigarettes but it was too difficult for him to do, no matter how hard he tried. This was the initial inspiration for the electronic cigarette.

Hon was a researcher of Chinese medicine such as ginseng and other herbal remedies. He used his knowledge of Chinese medicine and applied it to his creation of the electronic cigarette.  His first step was to find something to replicate smoke that users could breathe in and out. After searching high and low, he found success using a substance called propylene glycol, that when heated turned into a vapor that proved to be almost identical to smoke. Propylene glycol is a food additive that has been used in many consumer products and approved drugs since the early 1920’s. It is also approved by the FDA for a variety of uses in many consumer products. You may have also seen it used to create fake smoke in theatrical productions such as dry ice.  It is also blown through hospital air ducts to clean the air, it acts as an air germicide for bacteria that could be existing in the air itself and on surfaces.

Hon was able to successfully infuse the propylene glycol liquid with a pure nicotine extract, along with flavoring, to create a smoking experience that felt and tasted just like a real cigarette. From the nicotine satisfaction, to the throat hit, and the exhale. The electronic cigarette or “e cigarette” was right on point. One of it’s first American debut’s was at the American Tobacco Expo in Las Vegas, Nevada, where the electronic cigarette and cigar won multiple awards.

Since it’s initial introduction of the electronic cigarette into the American market place, many people did not know what to think, but once they tried it, they were amazed. The electronic cigarette has really evolved since it’s beginning and all sorts of different models and brands are popping up everywhere.  The technology has expanded into e-hookahs which utilize flavored vapor and are becoming popular in hookah bars. You can also get electronic cigars, electronic pipes, and customized personal vaporizers that may look nothing like a cigarette. The electric cigarette has become more of a movement and some are calling it the ‘smoker’s revolution’.

Originally posted on the V2 Cigs Blog.

A Sweet Home, Oregon, man is promoting the use of e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to traditional smoking

SWEET HOME, OREGON — Sean Morgan is very clear: He’s not trying to promote smoking to nonsmokers, or to children, or to anyone else not already legally into the habit.

But for fellow smokers like himself, who enjoy cigarettes but not some of their side effects, the Sweet Home resident suggests giving an e-cigarette a try.

“I don’t want to quit smoking,” said Morgan, 39, who’s gone through about a pack and a half of cigarettes a day since age 18. “I like smoking. But I don’t like smoke.”

About the size of a ballpoint pen, electronic or e-cigarettes are battery-powered vaporizers that turn nicotine into a breathable vapor.

The Electronic Cigarettes Association, a group of product companies, backs the product as “an alternative to a known killer,” a stance the federal Food and Drug Administration doesn’t share. This past April, the FDA announced it intends to treat e-cigarettes the same as traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Morgan doesn’t believe the two should be considered equal, and has asked the Sweet Home School Board not to treat them so.

He’d like the board to allow the use of e-cigs on school property, as long as they aren’t being used during school-related events. He’s thinking specifically of the Oregon Jamboree, the country music festival that takes place on the grounds of Sweet Home High School, where he volunteers each summer.

Morgan’s request comes as several public entities across the U.S. have included e-cigs in their smoking bans, including agencies in Washington state.

At its regular meeting this Wednesday, the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department will consider a revised version of its proposed e-cigarette regulation to allow use in public places where minors are lawfully prohibited. It would also allow “vaping” in places of employment that aren’t public places.
Cigarettes, in Morgan’s view, are harmful because they contain tobacco and emit tobacco smoke, which in turn can cause harm to others. In contrast, the nicotine in e-cigs is drawn directly into one person’s body without the tar, ash or carbon monoxide that comes with tobacco.

The carrier substance in Morgan’s brand of e-cig is propylene glycol, a compound found in fake “smoke” used for concerts and firefighter trainings. “What comes out is basically just fog,” he said.
It’s possible there’s some harm in it, he acknowledges, although studies to date haven’t noted any if the compound is consumed in small amounts. A New Zealand study also found trace amounts of carcinogens from the distillation process.

Morgan was concerned about the health implications at first. After learning about e-cigs roughly two years ago, he researched the products for months, worrying about whether the switch would hurt him.

“Then I started thinking, what’s in a cigarette? Forty to 60 carcinogens?” Morgan laughed, shaking his head. “It’s a no-brainer.”

The jury’s still out on the threat posed by nicotine itself, without tobacco. Some studies have found the chemical itself to be strongly addicting and associate its stimulant properties with hypertension, breathing problems and sleep disorders. According to the Mayo Clinic, the risk of cancer associated with long-term nicotine replacement therapy appears to be minimal, although one study indicated long-term exposure to even low levels of nicotine could lead to increased risk of mouth cancer in certain individuals.

The lack of hard data on the safety of e-cigs for users and bystanders still prompted the same Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department to craft its e-cigarette regulation.

From its press release: “We still believe there is a lack of hard data to assure the public that e-cigarettes are safe for the user and bystanders, but at the same time we acknowledge that there is a similar lack of data that they are in fact harmful.”

For Morgan, switching to e-cigarettes are a calculated risk; one he’s willing to take in the same way as the risks that come with consumption of caffeine.

“That’s kind of like how I view it, drinking coffee or Pepsi,” he said. “And I’m not going to stop eating red meat and eggs. I view this in the same light, I guess.”

In the meantime, he said, he doesn’t feel any of the side effects tobacco smoke produced. He’s stopped coughing. His sense of taste and smell have returned. He can sleep at night and feel energized when he wakes up. His coworkers prefer the scents of the vapor flavors (peach and espresso are among Morgan’s favorites) among to the smell of stale smoke.

He’s even saving money; spending roughly $40 a month on cartridges and replacement parts for the e-cigs compared with the $180 that used to support his habit of four cartons of cigarettes per month. (Most startup kits, according to the Electronic Cigarettes Association, are between $75 and $100.)

Some e-smokers use the devices to try to kick the habit altogether. Morgan isn’t one of those, but noted he might be able to do so more easily if he chooses.

At one point, his “e-juice” consumption dropped to just half a bottle a month, down from two bottles a month, which was roughly the equivalent in nicotine of the pack and a half of cigarettes he had been smoking before picking up the e-cigs. After more than 20 years of being hooked on cigarettes, being able to cut his use by three-quarters was a significant change.

“Now, I can go without smoking most of a day,” he said.

Morgan said he understands the Sweet Home School Board’s questions about the product and some members’ reluctance to seem soft on smoking.

“This is new and scary and like cigarettes,” he said. “My hope is someday this will be completely divorced from the concept of smoking cigarettes.”

Copyright 2011 democratherald.com. Used with permission. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Dr. Michael Siegel has said, “When you write an op-ed, you essentially become an authority on the topic you are writing about and you take on the responsibility of researching the topic to make sure that you are providing accurate information.”

By perpetuating propaganda and demonstrating an unwillingness to gather the facts and to listen to her readers, the author of the blog Ethic Soup sets a poor example of ethical conduct. Sharon McEachern has consistently failed to provide accurate information on the topic of e-cigarettes. Most of McEachern’s assertions are, as she freely admits, only guess work. In her March 24, 2009 post she wrote, “So, if the marketers of the electronic cigarette want to help smokers quit, how come they don’t conduct clinical studies and toxicity analyses? My guess is that they already have conducted these tests and not only do they not have evidence of safety, but probably have evidence that the opposite is true — e-cigs are toxic and dangerous to one’s health.”

Her guess is wrong. The original manufacturer of electronic cigarettes, Ruyan Group Limited, sponsored research conducted by Health New Zealand (NNZ) to study the safety and toxicity of its product. Health New Zealand’s October 2008, “Safety Report on the Ruyan® e-cigarette Cartridge and Inhaled Aerosol” concluded “Ruyan® e-cigarette is designed to be a safe alternative to smoking. The various test results confirm this is the case. It is very safe relative to cigarettes, and also safe in absolute terms on all measurements we have applied.”

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Assn., the American Lung Assn. and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids urged the FDA to remove ecigarettes from the market. But were these anti-tobacco groups—some of which have a mission to protect public health–really fearful that smokers would be harmed by the new products?

The truth lies well outside questions of health. “Is it Ethical to Re-create Smoking Culture?” McEachern asks in one of the post subheadings. She admits that anti-smoking groups fear that the ecig will bring back a “smoking culture” and that ex-smokers will “be lured back into the smoking trap.” This fear has proven to be unfounded. Two published surveys of e-cigarette users have found that 100% were smokers when they turned to the e-cig as an alternative.

In April 2009, HNZ presented the results of its research on e-cigarette safety and toxicity as a poster in Dublin at the 15th Annual Conference, Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, (SRNT). Many employees of the health organizations calling for a ban on ecigs are members of SRNT. Nevertheless, the HNZ research either was not brought to the attention of the FDA, or the FDA knew of this research and purposely ignored it.

McEachern’s July 28, 2009 post gleefully reported on the FDA’s press conference announcing the results of testing that “found carcinogens and other toxic chemicals dangerous to humans.” By the time McEachern wrote her follow-up blog post on September 9, 2009, the FDA’s lab report had already been widely denounced as incomplete and misleading, due to the lack of a quantitative analysis of the so-called carcinogens and toxins. The truth is that the quantity of Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs) in electronic cigarette liquid is equivalent to the amount contained in FDA-approved nicotine replacement products. There are no warnings on a nicotine patch that it could cause cancer—because the quantity of “carcinogens” is too miniscule to present a danger.

Subsequent testing by an independent lab has revealed that there are no carcinogenic TSNAs present in the vapor. Furthermore, the amount of diethylene glycol (DEG) that FDA found in the liquid of one cartridge is thousands of times below the Minimal Risk Level. DEG has never been detected in the vaporized aerosol by any lab.

Nevertheless, McEachern continued to praise, as well as misquote, the FDA’s findings. She wrote, “As reported by Ethic Soup in past posts, the FDA and numerous health organizations have shown that e-cigarettes present an extensive variety of potential dangers to users (and maybe also to those around them) who inhale a mixture of nicotine — both dangerous and addictive — and propylene glycol which is an ingredient in antifreeze.”

Really? Then perhaps you should check out here, here, here, here and here. And here’s the results of an actual nicotine study: Nicotine Study.

Need more proof? I have plenty more reliable sources I can publish, if necessary. Given all the research already undertaken on the subject, to say that “e-cigarettes present an extensive variety of potential dangers to users” is patently untrue.

Yes, of course, users inhale nicotine. The reason the FDA allows this addictive substance to be added to gum, lozenges, patches, and inhalers is so that smokers who crave the nicotine in cigarettes will find these “NRT” products to be an acceptable substitute for smoking. Initially, some smokers do, but when the NRT is discontinued, so is the smoking abstinence. In the final analysis, only 10% of NRT users achieve smoking cessation. The vast majority of smokers would never make the initial switch away from traditional cigarettes to an e-cigarette if the vapor contained no nicotine. But some e-cigarette consumers eventually do taper down to zero-nicotine liquid part of the time (35%) or all of the time (6%).

It was DEG, not propylene glycol (PG), that the FDA linked to antifreeze. At one time, ethylene glycol was the main ingredient in antifreeze, but many animals and children were being poisoned by the sweet-tasting liquid. Ethylene glycol has been replaced with PG because PG is non-toxic.

It’s a problem that I have to correct these factual errors in my own blog. Had McEachern not cut herself off from the comments of her readers, we might have been able to help her separate fact from fiction via the comments section in her own blog. On the September 9 post, she allowed one comment.

She responded to the comment, “Hi Joey! Glad you responded to this post. I have several thoughts/questions to share. How do you know that e-cigarettes are 100 to 1,000 times less harmful than smoking tobacco cigarettes? Can you scientifically disprove that the following groups are all wrong about e-cigarettes being “poisonous?” — American Cancer Society, American Heart Assn., American Lung Assn., the World Health Organization and the FDA.”

Apparently these are meant to be rhetorical questions, since McEachern immediately closed the comments option. Nevertheless, I do have answers.

We know that ecigarettes are orders of magnitude less harmful for two reasons. First, we applied common sense. Smoke contains tar, carbon monoxide, heavy metals, and particles of ash. Vapor does not contain any of these. When any substance is burned, a chemical reaction takes place. In the case of tobacco, it has been found that 4,000 chemicals are generated, most of which are toxic and many of which are carcinogenic.

In contrast, vaporization is a physical process that changes the state of the substance from liquid to gas. No chemical changes take place. However, some substances have a higher vaporization temperature than others. Thus, some of the substances that are found in the liquid don’t always make it into the vapor.

Second, we observed the effect that switching to vapor had on our own health. Over 90% of users consistently report improved health across multiple surveys. In my own case, I have observed that I am no longer kept awake at night by the sound of my wheezing. I no longer cough up a gob of phlegm in the morning. Like many other e-cig consumers, I have now passed the one-year mark for being abstinent from smoking. My lungs couldn’t be happier.

Can I scientifically prove that the named groups are wrong about e-cigarettes being poisonous? If e-cigarettes are poisonous, why are users growing healthier? Shouldn’t they be dropping like flies? The named groups did not conduct any research of their own. They consistently refer to the FDA’s flawed report as “proof” that the products are dangerous. The FDA proved no such thing. Furthermore numerous tests by organizations other than FDA have found nothing poisonous or cancer-causing in the products. http://www.casaa.org/resources/lab.asp

U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon wrote: “Together, both Smoking Everywhere and NJOY have already sold hundreds of thousands of electronic cigarettes, yet FDA cites no evidence that those electronic cigarettes have endangered anyone. Nor has FDA cited any evidence that electronic cigarettes are any more an immediate threat to public health and safety than traditional cigarettes, which are readily available to the public.”

I will leave the comments to this post open, allowing Ms. McEachern, the FDA, and any of the organizations and people she has admired in her blog posts about e-cigarettes to defend the ethics of using disinformation to sabotage the recovery of almost a million former smokers and to prevent the recovery of millions more. Why on Earth would anyone work so hard to perpetuate smoking-related disease and death?

Originally posted by Elaine Keller at Nicotine Truth blog: http://nicotinetruth.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html