E-cigarette sparks attention as FDA crackdown looms

March 20, 2009 By Ken Mclaughlin

The young man in the tall swivel chair at the mall seems lost in nicotine nirvana as he takes a deep drag on a cigarette and blows smoke rings to the surprise of passing shoppers.

Sarah Kruberg, a 21-year-old college student from Portola Valley, Calif., does a double take but keeps walking.

"I knew it couldn't be someone smoking a cigarette," she said with a laugh. "But I didn't know what it was."

What Kruberg saw at Westfield Valley Fair mall in Santa Clara, Calif., was a kiosk salesman puffing away on an electronic cigarette, a new product that Jose Canseco, the steroid-tainted baseball slugger turned e-cigarette pitchman, predicts will "revolutionize the industry of smoking."

Health officials worldwide, however, are casting a wary eye.

Last summer a Florida company began aggressively marketing e-cigarettes _ which emit a nicotine vapor with the help of a computer chip _ but the U.S. now seems poised to pull e-cigs from the market because the agency considers them "new drugs." That means they need approval from the FDA, which requires companies to back up their claims with scientific data.

"It is illegal to sell or market them, and the FDA is looking into this," said Rita Chappelle, an agency spokeswoman.

Asked if that meant the FDA would crack down on the dozens of mall kiosks nationwide where the product is being sold like perfume and cellphone covers, Chappelle said: "This is an open case. Beyond that I cannot comment."

Informed of the FDA's position, David Burke, general manager at Westfield Valley Fair, said Monday that the shopping center is looking into the legality of the product. "All our retailers are required to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations," he said.

Invented in China several years ago, the e-cig not only "smokes" like a cigarette. It also looks like a cigarette, feels like a cigarette, glows like a cigarette and contains nicotine like a cigarette.

But it's not a cigarette. It's a slender stainless-steel tube.

When someone puffs on an e-cigarette, a computer-aided sensor activates a heating element that vaporizes a solution -- usually containing nicotine _ in the mouthpiece. The resulting mist -- which comes in flavors such as chocolate and cherry -- can be inhaled. A light-emitting diode on the tip of the e-cigarette simulates the glow of burning tobacco. The device is powered by a rechargable lithium battery.

Its boosters say it's the perfect way to quit smoking because the nicotine mist contains no tar or any of the host of cancer-causing agents of tobacco smoke -- yet has the touch and feel of smoking. That, they say, makes the e-cigarette superior to other nicotine-delivery systems such as patches, chewing gum, aerosol sprays and inhalers.

The levels of nicotine can be adjusted, from "high" to no nicotine at all. That, e-cig supporters say, allows smokers to wean themselves from nicotine, which most doctors say is highly addictive but not, as far as they know, a carcinogen.

The product's aficionados say that because it contains no tobacco, it can be used in bars, nightclubs, restaurants and other public places where states and localities have banned tobacco use.

But anti-smoking groups say that's exactly the problem. They fear that it will reintroduce a "smoking culture" into places where people no longer are used to seeing wisps of smoke and cigarettes hanging from people's mouths.

"I understand why people use the nicotine replacement aids," said Serena Chen, regional tobacco policy director of the American Lung Association in California. "But I don't understand why people want to pretend that they're smoking."

Chen believes that many ex-smokers will conclude that the e-cigarette is harmless and be lured back into the smoking trap.

"If you had a serial killer who liked to stab people, would you give him a rubber knife?" asked Chen. "This just boggles the mind."

Executives at Smoking Everywhere, the Sunrise, Fla., firm that is marketing the product on the Internet and in mall kiosks, say criticism of the e-cigarette is irrational.

"The mist is mostly water. It has to be better for you than smoking," said Eitan Peer, vice president of the company. "It's been approved by doctors. We've been on Fox News. We've been on the 'Howard Stern Show.' Our spokesmen are Jose Canseco and Danny Bonaduce."

Company officials say the other main ingredient in the e-cig is propylene glycol, which is used in everything from Hollywood smoke machines to food colorings to hydraulic fluids.

Peer said the suggested retail price of the Chinese-made e-cig is $149, but because the kiosk operators are independent vendors, the price varies.

The other day, Dan Conroy picked up his e-cigarette "starter kit" from one of the two Smoking Everywhere kiosks at Valley Fair for $140, plus tax.

"It's the first time I've seen the product," said Conroy, 37, a Sacramento, Calif., contractor. "But I'm interested in quitting, and this has to be healthier than tobacco."

He and several other smokers interviewed at the mall agreed that e-smoke isn't as satisfying or rich as tobacco smoke. But they all said they thought they could get used to it.

"It tastes pretty good," said Oliver De La Cruz, 29, of Daly City, Calif., whose wife, Kristine, was about to give birth to their first child. She encouraged him to try the e-cig, saying it would be a wonderful present to their newborn if Daddy would quit smoking.

But both De La Cruz and one nicotine-addicted friend, 23-year-old Marco Maneru of Daly City, said they wanted to do some research on the e-cigarette before they buy one.

"Who knows?" Maneru said. "There could be some chemicals in there that are really bad for you."


(c) 2009, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).
Visit MercuryNews.com, the World Wide Web site of the Mercury News, at www.mercurynews.com
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Expert: Be concerned about how apps collect, share health data

October 20, 2017
As of 2016 there were more than 165,000 health and wellness apps available though the Apple App Store alone. According to Rice University medical media expert Kirsten Ostherr, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates ...

Three million Americans carry loaded handguns daily, study finds

October 19, 2017
An estimated 3 million adult American handgun owners carry a firearm loaded and on their person on a daily basis, and 9 million do so on a monthly basis, new research indicates. The vast majority cited protection as their ...

More teens than ever aren't getting enough sleep

October 19, 2017
If you're a young person who can't seem to get enough sleep, you're not alone: A new study led by San Diego State University Professor of Psychology Jean Twenge finds that adolescents today are sleeping fewer hours per night ...

Across Asia, liver cancer is linked to herbal remedies: study

October 18, 2017
Researchers have uncovered widespread evidence of a link between traditional Chinese herbal remedies and liver cancer across Asia, a study said Wednesday.

Eating better throughout adult years improves physical fitness in old age, suggests study

October 18, 2017
People who have a healthier diet throughout their adult lives are more likely to be stronger and fitter in older age than those who don't, according to a new study led by the University of Southampton.

Global calcium consumption appears low, especially in Asia

October 18, 2017
Daily calcium intake among adults appears to vary quite widely around the world in distinct regional patterns, according to a new systematic review of research data ahead of World Osteoporosis Day on Friday, Oct. 20.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2009
Excellent article. It presents both sides of the argument pretty well.

I personally think the FDA is mis-using it's authority. The problem is that people are using this in public places which makes others wish to use cigarettes and such. I agree that's a problem, and it's typically a behavior (that of the indulger) that doesn't serve the general public. However, the FDA are deciding to regulate it because of HOW it is used, not because it's a drug and it's dangerous and such. I can understand they want "a piece of the action" for some reason or another, but adding a leisure-tax on it isn't "CONTROLLING" it... just making an already expensive thing that much more expensive. It's not like kids are going to save up and buy it (especially if they're not already smoking). And it's not like making a $150 dollar product $180 dollars with taxes is going to do much either.

On the other hand -- let me illustrate the opposite side. You can go out and buy a willow tree, or a bail of dried willow-leaves, with no problem at all. You can even say it is an herbal-supplement. But the moment you extract a 0.005 mg amount and put it in a capsule (which is healthier than smoking an ounce of willow-bark, right?), the FDA has the right, and somewhat the responsibility, to jump on the case and fine you.

WHY? It's the letter of the law. But you see, they don't really apply by the letter, because they don't prosecute cases like that. They only prosecute what they wish to. So they are using the spirit of their motives to apply the letter of the law (or at times not apply it). So then, why did they write the law as letters and not as spirit, if they use the spirit of their motives in ways contradictory to both the intention, or spirit, of the law and the letter of the law?

CLARIFICATION: I might choose to write a letter-law because I say a spirit-law can't (or at least fairly) be enforced. But then I use spirit to enforce the letter-law. As is always. But as no spirit-law was formulated -- how do you know that the spirit I used to enforce (or not) the letter-law was in fact harmonious with what mankind would will to be the spirit-law?

EXAMPLE: "People should not be mean." "Oh that's too vague (ie, spiritual), we need to codify concrete guidelines (ie, letter) -- how about "it's illegal to shoot some one"?" "Ok". ~pssst... LATER~ Two people are brought to court for shooting someone. The first shot some body because the government endorsed their authority to make such deadly decisions and they personally decided to abuse their power knowing that they could call upon the letter of the law (their ordainment) to clear themselves... they were acquitted. The other person shot a person who was trying to kill them, ie, in self-defense... they were found guilty.

The court could have decided these cases anyway that they wanted to. There were no real guidelines for deciding the case but "apply the letter as you choose". If there had been a spirit law, then we could have easily found the first man guilty, and the second innocent. But as the lawyers argue upon the letter-law, the letter get's applied in un-spiritual ways, even though it was the spirit of one thing or the other that (often) lead(s) to the application of the letter in one way or another.

PS -- I personally think the things could be more regulated, to allow only certain amounts of nicotine to be in the cartridge, etc. But as I see it, it's not the FDA's role to keep the e-cigarette out of the restaraunts. From my point of view, that's the law-makers job to change "no tobacco use" -- to "no smoking" or such. You may however see such as BEING the role of the FDA. But why not the ATF? If there is segmentation of authorital roles, why then allow a loose overlapping of such? For example, if the Congress asserts it's right to serve in a judiciary role as well, then they can overturn the Supreme Court's rulings, no? Thus obviating the power of checks-and-balances.

I am not saying that I am right, but that a greater debate over politics and their goals (moralistic [ie, control over behaviors], financial, military, etc.) would serve us well.

Long story short: Something that can be beneficial is being misused by the consumer in ways that the manufacturer can't do anything about besides not selling the potentially beneficial product. The FDA goes after them with teeth showing. There's apparently no action that they can perform in this case that would be very advantageous. The law-makers could. The consumers could. The police could even fine consumers for "feigning to break the law" or "disturbing the peace" or such. But they see that as applying the letter in a way that's not quite in line with the spirit, only because the punishment is to severe... or they're afraid of getting counter-sued, etc. These are just my observations and ideas, feel free to comment in a positive way.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.