FDA Admits Vaping Is Safer Than Smoking But Refuses To Correct the Record
Don’t expect a change in course, despite the long-awaited admission.

Is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) changing its tune on electronic cigarettes?
In May, Brian King was appointed head of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products. King is not known for championing e-cigarettes or reduced-risk alternatives to cigarettes. But after a few months on the job, he's out on the media and conference circuit giving a clearer idea of how he envisions the future of nicotine regulation.
In an interview with the Associated Press on Monday, King was asked about surveys showing most people think e-cigarettes are just as dangerous as traditional cigarettes and whether that was a problem. "I'm fully aware of the misperceptions that are out there and aren't consistent with the known science," King replied. "We do know that e-cigarettes — as a general class — have markedly less risk than a combustible cigarette product." King went on to say that communication campaigns must use science and evidence and be careful to avoid unintended consequences.
Earlier this year, Clive Bates, a tobacco harm reduction advocate and former chief of the anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health, called the public misperceptions of vaping an "American crime scene." Bates was referencing the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey showing just 2.6 percent of Americans accurately believed e-cigarettes were "much less harmful than combustible cigarettes."
Harm reduction advocates such as Bates believe these misperceptions about the risks of vaping are holding back many smokers from switching to a safer product and causing a rash of bad public policy decisions. These include bans on nontobacco flavors in e-cigarettes, capping nicotine levels, and taxes that make vapes just as expensive as cigarettes.
King's acknowledgment that much of the public is wrong on the "known science" and that we "know that e-cigarettes — as a general class — have markedly less risk than a combustible cigarette product" is more straightforward than anything you'll find on the FDA's website.
"Many studies suggest e-cigarettes and noncombustible tobacco products may be less harmful than combustible cigarettes," reads the FDA's main page on e-cigarettes. "However, there is not yet enough evidence to support claims that e-cigarettes and other ENDS [Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems] are effective tools for quitting smoking."
After King's statement Monday, many were hoping to elicit further detail in a speech he gave two days later at the Global Tobacco & Nicotine Forum (GTNF), an annual conference that bills itself as a "global exchange for views and ideas between public health experts, government representatives, the industry, and investors." The conference's sponsors and most attendees are drawn from the tobacco and e-cigarette industries.
Those looking for an expansion on King's remarks to the A.P. were left disappointed. King told attendees that he believes in the "continuum of risk" regarding nicotine products. The idea is that combustible cigarettes are the most dangerous form of nicotine consumption and nicotine replacement therapies are the safest. Toward the safer end of the spectrum are products like e-cigarettes that offer smokers a satisfying nicotine product but without the smoke that may kill them.
But King didn't mention the public's misperceptions about the relative risks of e-cigarettes. Instead, King highlighted that the FDA had denied more than 99 percent of e-cigarette applications to stay on the market, and e-cigarettes still present a danger for youth.
When asked by Reason whether the FDA is going to commit any resources to correct misperceptions about e-cigarettes, King simply responded with "I can't commit to any specific actions."
When asked for further comment, an FDA spokesperson responded saying the "FDA continues to explore how best to communicate with the public about the continuum of risk related to tobacco products. We cannot comment on or commit to any specific actions at this time. However, we do note that it is critical that the development and implementation of public health education campaigns are evidence based to best achieve intended effects on the target population while minimizing adverse consequences for the population as a whole."
In other words, the FDA has no plan to correct any of the widespread misinformation about e-cigarettes anytime soon. If you want to know the real risks of e-cigarettes vs. combustible cigarettes, you'll have to look to the U.K. government for that.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trust the science.
Trust the experts.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded (emu-05) me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
It’s the government that must be questioned.
Is there a class action suit against the Feds available? They’ve cost the vape industry billions.
In a little local story, British police threaten gay British journalist with arrest and beating.
Can't reason people out of a stance based on emotion.
Which means no amount of facts or science can stand up to the power of "Think of teh children!!!!"
I took you off mute but you just said something stupendously stupid.
Back you go.
Suck it.
Why? This is one time sarc is on the right side of rational thinking.
Give credit where it is due.
Where did the emotion surrounding this topic come from? The FDA and the anti-smoking lobby.
Just like the CDC and Fauci created the misperception that every age range was equally at risk from Covid.
there is no Dana only JUUL.
The good ol' Federal Death Administration, still doing its best to kill people in a manner that avoids a public outcry.
But vaping looks bad and resembles something people don't like, therefore politics demands adherence to falsity.
If government is talking to you it is lying to you.
The only good government employee is a dead government employee.
Do not believe that vaping is less dangerous than smoking cigarettes. Most people have no idea where the liquids employed in the devices come from. Should we accept that the FDA has done its due dilligence on the matter? Not really, or why would the agency do a 180 degree turn. Looks like, on certain issues, it decides by way of the way the public wind blows.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, [res-03] I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/