it was discovered this weekend that ASH has a financial conflict of interest of its own, which it has failed to disclose, which has the appearance of leading to bias and partiality in its presentation of the facts and its opinions on the issue of electronic cigarettes.

It turns out that ASH is a major recipient of money from Big Pharma, which stands to lose huge amounts of profits if smokers start turning to electronic cigarettes rather than to existing pharmaceutical products in their attempts to quit smoking.

Specifically, ASH received $100,000 from Pfizer, according to the company's civic organization funding report for the 2nd quarter of 2009. Interestingly, that same report reveals that other recipients of major funding from Pfizer include three of the other major national anti-smoking organizations that are pushing for the removal of e-cigarettes from the market: the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and American Heart Association.

Is it merely a coincidence that each of the five major national organizations (the ACS, ALA, AHA, ASH and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids) that are lobbying for the removal of e-cigarettes from the market have been heavily funded by Big Pharma, which stands to lose substantial profits if smokers use e-cigarettes in their quit attempts rather than the traditional pharmaceutical products, such as nicotine replacement therapy and Chantix (which is - coincidentally or not - manufactured by Pfizer)?

It certainly has the appearance that these organizations are being influenced by virtue of their own conflicts of interest. It is nice for ASH to call on the public to be skeptical of information they receive from groups with financial ties to electronic cigarette companies, but ASH should have been forthcoming in disclosing its own financial conflict of interest: financial support from Big Pharma. That is every bit as important a conflict and it has every bit of the same appearance of biasing ASH's presentation of information and its opinion on this issue.

Now to some brief comments on the substantive scientific issue to which ASH is responding. The original article in The Peninsula stated that: "the “e-cigarette” harms human health far more than the normal cigarette" and that "it contains 40 times as much nicotine as a regular cigarette."

Neither of these statements is true. There is absolutely no evidence that e-cigarettes are more harmful than regular cigarettes, and there is abundant evidence to support the contention that e-cigarettes are much safer than conventional ones. In fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a product which delivers propylene glycol and nicotine is going to be safer than one which delivers the nicotine along with 10,000+ chemicals, including 57 carcinogens and numerous toxins.

It is also untrue that e-cigarettes deliver 40 times as much nicotine as regular cigarettes. They actually deliver less nicotine than most conventional cigarettes.

the FDA failed to mention in its press conference that the levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (the carcinogens) detected in electronic cigarettes were extremely low, below the level allowed in nicotine replacement products, such as nicotine patches, inhalers and gum. The agency is not threatening to take nicotine patches or gum off the market, although they too contain detectable levels of carcinogens.

The nicotine in electronic cigarettes and FDA-approved nicotine replacement products is derived from tobacco, which makes traces of some tobacco carcinogens essentially inevitable.

The level of the same tobacco-specific nitrosamines in conventional cigarettes is at least 300 to 1,400 times higher than what has been detected in electronic cigarette cartridges. In other words, you would have to smoke as many as 1,400 electronic cigarettes to be potentially exposed to the same amount of these carcinogens as smoking one conventional cigarette.

In fact, the FDA failed to perform the laboratory test of most importance: a comparison of the presence of, and concentrations of, toxins and carcinogens in electronic cigarettes and conventional ones. Scientific studies have demonstrated that conventional cigarettes contain 57 identified carcinogens, while electronic cigarettes have not been found to contain any carcinogens at higher than trace levels.

The bottom line is this: Conventional cigarettes have been thoroughly tested. They are known to contain at least 10,000 chemicals, including about 57 carcinogens. Electronic cigarettes deliver nicotine without these 10,000 chemicals and 57 carcinogens. It doesn't take a rocket toxicologist to figure out that electronic cigarettes are a much, much safer alternative to conventional ones.

Unfortunately, what the FDA and the anti-smoking groups are essentially telling smokers is that they would rather have them continue to smoke the most toxic cigarettes — the conventional ones — rather than switch to a product that is likely orders of magnitude safer.

The question the FDA and the anti-smoking groups are asking is: "Are electronic cigarettes safe?" That is not the right question. The right question is: "Are electronic cigarettes much safer than conventional ones?" The FDA and anti-smoking groups are comparing electronic cigarettes to a solution of spring-fresh Maine mountain stream water. What they need to compare electronic cigarettes to is a Marlboro cigarette.

This doesn't mean that there aren't problems with e-cigarettes that need to be addressed. This doesn't mean e-cigarette manufacturers shouldn't be asked to make certain changes, such as instituting tighter quality control procedures and making sure the propylene glycol is devoid of diethylene glycol. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be restrictions on the sale of these devices to minors.

But it does mean that it is lunacy to ban the product, especially given that the very same FDA is now approving deadly Marlboros, Winstons, Kools, Newports, Camels and others.

The FDA and anti-smoking groups are on the verge of losing sight of the actual objective of public health regulation: to improve the overall population's health. The combination of FDA approval of conventional cigarettes and FDA banning of the much safer electronic ones would be ludicrous, would have detrimental population health effects and would send exactly the wrong message to the public.

The real threat to our children's health is not electronic cigarettes. It's the real ones.

•Dr. Michael Siegel is a professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health.

Source:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/08/action-on-smoking-and-health-continues.html

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-siegel-e-cigarettes-blumenth.artaug23,0,3349408.story