|
Prominent Public Health Physicians and Tobacco Researchers
Expose Double Standard in the FDA's Recent Study of Electronic
Cigarettes and Challenge the FDA's Alarmist Attitude Toward the
Devices
Contact: Thomas R. Kiklas, Director of Media, inLife LLC,
949-250-9600 ext 108,tkiklas@myinlife.com
BOSTON, July 27 /Standard Newswire/ -- The FDA recently went
public with misleading information about the safety of electronic
cigarettes and the marketing of the devices, not only using its
clout but recruiting other prominent organizations to demonize a
product that has great public health benefit potential.
A group of prominent doctors and tobacco researchers, including
Dr. Michael Siegel at the Boston University School of Public
Health, Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force,
and Dr. Brad Rodu, Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research
University of Louisville, challenge the FDA to provide the full
quantitative data of the study upon which the FDA has based its
warning against electronic cigarettes. They are concerned that
the FDA's disingenuous targeting of electronic cigarettes through a
biased presentation of the scientific data has had significant
negative impact upon the public perception of electronic
cigarettes, when the best available evidence suggests that these
have shown that the devices offer great potential to reduce serious
health issues among traditional tobacco smokers.
In a July 22 news release, the FDA cited the detectable presence
of carcinogens and "toxic chemicals" in a "small sample" of
electronic cigarette cartridges as reason for alarm, singling out
nitrosamines as particularly toxic. What the FDA fails to inform
the public is that detectable amounts of carcinogens are also
present in nicotine replacement products such as NicoDerm CQ and
Nicorette gum, both approved by the FDA, and nitrosamines that can
be also found in food items such bacon and beer. This double
standard and alarmist attitude has had the significant and
unfortunate effect of inducing hysteria among the public,
discouraging tobacco smokers from using a product which is thought
to be a significantly safer alternative to traditional tobacco.
Regrettably, the FDA has used biased reporting of this small and
inconclusive study, the complete results of which have not been
made public, to secure the vocal support of groups such as the
American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, the Institute
for Global Health, and the American Lung Association in their
attack on electronic cigarettes. These researchers argue that
it is absurd to consider taking electronic cigarettes off the
market when it is the conventional ones which have been shown to be
killing people. Further, the electronic cigarette community calls
for accurate and fair reporting relative to the findings and
statements of prominent medical professionals in favor of this new
and important technology and challenges the media to tell the other
side of the story.
"The FDA's laboratory findings actually indicate that electronic
cigarettes are much, much safer than conventional cigarettes," says
Dr. Michael Siegel. "The traces of carcinogens present are
also present in nicotine replacement products. The FDA and the
anti-smoking groups have fallen into a huge analytical trap as they
have failed to ask the appropriate question. The question they
are asking is: 'Are electronic cigarettes safe?' That is not
the right question. The right question is: 'Are electronic
cigarettes much safer than traditional ones?'"
Dr. Rodu states, "The FDA tested e-cigarettes for TSNAs using a
questionable sampling regimen, and the methods that were so
sensitive that the results may have no possible significance to
users. The agency failed to report specific levels of these
contaminants, and it has failed to conduct similar testing of
nicotine medicines that have been sold in the U.S. for over 20
years. These are not the actions of an agency that is science-based
and consumer-focused. These pseudo-scientific actions are clearly
intended to form the justification for banning a category of
products that are probably 99.9% safer than cigarettes."
Dr. Joel Nitzkin speaking as individual states, "The newly
adopted FDA/Tobacco legislation will give full FDA approval to
currently marketed conventional cigarettes. The new law
encourages cigarette companies to produce new "reduced exposure"
cigarettes to be marketed as reduced exposure products, with no
scientific evidence that such reductions in exposure will reduce
risk of future tobacco related illness and death. In the
context of these provisions of the newly adopted FDA/Tobacco bill
-- FDA should be encouraging, not maligning the manufacture and
sale of electronic cigarettes, and working with manufacturers to
assure the highest possible quality control."
For more information and interviews, contact:
Michael Siegel, MD, MPH
Professor
Department of Community Health Sciences
Boston University School of Public Health
617-638-5167
Email: mbsiegel@bu.edu
Joel L. Nitzkin, MD, MPH, DPA
Chair AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force
Phone: 504 899 7893 or 800 598 2561
Fax: 504 899 7557
jln-md@mindspring.com
www.aaphp.org
Brad Rodu
Professor of Medicine
Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research
University of Louisville
Phone: 502-561-7273
Email: brad.rodu@louisville.edu
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com
Thomas R. Kiklas
Director of Media
inLife LLC
Phone: 949-250-9600 x108
Email: tkiklas@myinlife.com
|
