Throughout the month of October, we will be looking at the subject of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) – debunking myths, looking at research and starting a conversation. Subject matter experts will be posting each Friday with insights into the issue. Today’s post comes from Shani Taylor with a look into how electronic cigarettes are defined/framed.
Check out my introduction to the series as well as Part 1.
In some cases, they are referred to as electronic cigarettes. However, more technically (and arguably more accurately), these products are known as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). This naming and framing distinction is actually a big deal. Right now, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is hoping to gain the ability to regulate the sale of certain ENDS as drug therapies, as they do with current therapies that deliver nicotine. Unlike currently regulated therapies (specifically FDA- approved nicotine replacement products), these devices do not contain any health warnings. Manufacturers, on the other hand, contend that “electronic cigarettes” are intended to serve as a healthy alternative to cigarettes rather than a therapeutic product. Although, manufacturers often fail to fully disclose the chemicals used in electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) despite the unproven health benefits including the claim that “you can keep smoking with little or no risk to yourself or to those exposed to the second hand emissions.”
I recall attending an SRNT (Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco) conference plenary session on electronic nicotine delivery systems. There was a woman sitting next to me who was using the very device that was being discussed. (Rumor had it that she was a marketer for the device). After noticing in my periphery what appeared to be smoke (the vapor), I realized what was going on and fanned the vapor from coming into my direction. Mind you, this was taking place inside of a hotel that, rightfully so, proudly advertised their smoke-free classification. Here was a perfect example of how the “marketing and use of ENDS could undermine public smoking bans,” one of the several concerns of the World Health Organization as it relates to these “electronic cigarettes.”
So the issue arises, how do these products fit within traditional “smoke-free” policies? Can they? Users typically refer to the action of what they are doing as “vaping,” rather than smoking, in an effort to highlight the vapor produced when the device is used. Many current smoke-free policies focus on lit tobacco products and expand the definition of smoking to include the burning, inhalation, exhalation or carrying of cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, etc.). As electronic nicotine delivery systems are neither classified as tobacco products and do not produce “smoke” they continue to evade smoke-free policies. As a result of these issues, some countries such as Brazil, Canada, Uruguay and Turkey have overcome the concern by banning ENDS altogether. Moreover than reflecting an example of a product that is able to circumvent legal parameters around smoking, these devices represent the continuation of falsified marketing by manufacturers – a practice not uncommon of the tobacco industry. This leads me, and many of you to wonder, what’s next?
———————————————
Shani Taylor is the project manager for the National Cancer Institute’s smoking cessation websites, smokefree.gov and women.smokefree.gov. She is responsible for coordinating and assisting with the development, implementation and promotion of these initiatives. Shani’s background is in health communication and she is interested in the use of new and emerging media and technologies for health.
{ 2 comments }
