Thou shalt only inhale from burning plant matter, VCU study says electronic cigarettes are blowing smoke

Eric Hill

Opinion Editor

As any VCU student knows, there is a noticeable population of smokers at this college. Now while the majority still refrains from coffin nails, according to the VCU Wellness Center’s statistics, about one in five students have smoked tobacco. While these figures may decline with the new smoking ban in restaurants and bars passed last December and the possibility of new tobacco taxes to fill the State budget gap, there is still a need for an effective solution to reversing or preventing the negative health effects that come with smoking.

One “healthier” alternative to the old burning bush came a la “e-cigarettes” or cigarettes that electronically create nicotine vapor. With e-cigarettes, nicotine vapor is inhaled into the lungs, supposedly without all of the harmful carcinogens that accompany regular tobacco smoke. According to a CNN.com article released last July, e-cigarette shipments that have been tested by the Food and Drug Administration have yielded results that do not entirely support the manufacturer’s claims. Propylene glycol, which could potentially be harmful to humans, is found in the nicotine vapor; more study has been requested by both the FDA and the World Health Organization to ascertain more definitive results. Currently, propylene glycol is considered safe for human consumption by these organizations.

In a study conducted by VCU with a grant created by the National Cancer Institute, evidence is being compiled into a case that now says e-cigarettes do not meet the necessary standards for safe human consumption. Principal investigator, Thomas Eisenberg Ph.D. from the VCU department of psychology and director of the VCU Clinical Behavioral Pharmacology Laboratory made statements about his study in a VCU news release that claim the two brands of e-cigarettes which he tested did not deliver a measurable amount of nicotine.

While I have faith in the scientific method and the study conducted by Dr. Eisenberg, I have some qualms amount the circumstances of these results. While I am no statistician, there were only 16 test subjects in Dr. Eisenberg’s study, hardly what I would call a sure number. As reported last year by various news agencies, Altria (formerly Philip Morris U.S.A) gave significant sums to VCU for tobacco research. Even though the study was funded by a National Cancer Institute grant, my skepticism detects an odd coincidence that VCU was chosen to conduct this study.

Currently no major U.S. tobacco manufacturer has produced an electronic cigarette, so there is no established, domestic lobby for this product.  Most of these e-cigarette businesses are small or ship from overseas where the number of e-cigarette users in increasing. One could see how this “healthier” cigarette alternative would threaten the hold that large companies have on the U.S. tobacco market.

One other political point of contention is that the FDA now has complete control of the regulation of traditional cigarettes, while electronic cigarettes are as yet unregulated. Arguably, even if e-cigarettes are found to be harmful to consume, it isn’t like their competition is very stiff. Regular cigarettes are the leading cause of lung cancer deaths. When a consumer will take death as a side effect, simply putting a sticker that says “death-free” on a package of electronic cigarettes could topple the established cigarette market—especially when traditional cigarette manufacturers have to jump through regulatory hoops that the e-cigarette manufactures don’t have to.

While e-cigarettes circumvent taxes, indoor smoking bans and do not have the same odor as traditional cigarettes, they are still potentially addictive since they contain nicotine. The Electronic Cigarette Association, a group of several manufacturers who promote electronic cigarette technologies, say that their products are fulfilling a consumer need and are a safer alternative to a proven killer. Even so, they profit at the expense of addiction, and they aren’t marketing their products as a smoking cessation option (which also comes with FDA regulation.)

While these e-cigarette manufacturers are exploiting the addictive qualities of nicotine, and evidence shows that they do not deliver the same relief of cravings that traditional smoking produces, it is unfair to paint them as unsafe when compared to the death dealers of traditional tobacco companies. While we do not yet know the long term effects of nicotine vapor, one could easily say the same thing of energy drink companies, coffee houses or herbal supplements that can all have addictive qualities. Until a more definitive conclusion is reached, the only other alternative for the 20 percent of VCU undergraduate students is to keep lighting up or quit. I say quit, but do your own investigation into e-cigarettes. For now, this study doesn’t satisfy my craving for truth.