American Lung Association Demands the FDA Mislead the Public About Vaping
Providing accurate information about the risks of different nicotine products is long overdue.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should abandon any efforts to inform the public that vaping is safer than smoking, says the American Lung Association (ALA).
Numerous public surveys show a consistent, widespread misperception that vaping nicotine is just as or more dangerous than smoking cigarettes. The problem is so extensive that correcting these false beliefs forms part of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) 5-year strategic plan.
Writing in the journal Addiction, Brian King, the head of CTP, stated: "Opportunities exist to educate adults who smoke cigarettes about the relative risks of tobacco products." To that end, among the five goals listed as part of CTP's plan is a commitment to inform the public that not all tobacco products are created equally, with cigarettes being the most dangerous and others, such as e-cigarettes, being far less harmful.
The pledge to provide accurate information about the risks of different nicotine products is long overdue and in line with the public health communications of peer countries such as Canada, New Zealand, and the U.K. (The U.K. even has vape shops in hospitals, and some smokers are offered free vapes to help them quit.)
But in their comments on CTP's strategic plan, the ALA, which proclaims its commitment to a world free of lung disease, demands the FDA "remove language from the description for this goal that references informing adults about the relative risk of tobacco products" and that "CTP should have no part in the industry's efforts to sustain addiction through the failed and flawed notion that adult smokers should switch to e-cigarettes."
Despite ALA's protestations, the idea that e-cigarettes are effective for smoking cessation is not a tobacco industry notion. According to the prestigious Cochrane Review, e-cigarettes are more effective than nicotine patches or gums in helping smokers quit. In essence, the ALA is asking the FDA to withhold accurate information from the public that could save lives. The recommendations sparked strong reactions from those who believe safer alternatives to cigarettes are a no-brainer from a public health perspective.
"This is highly ironic, given the extent to which the Lung Association and other tobacco control organizations went to punish the tobacco industry for lying to the public and hiding critical health information," writes Michael Siegel, a visiting professor at the Tufts University School of Medicine. "It is also unethical because it violates the public health code of ethics, which calls for honesty and transparency in public health communications. We do not hide critical health information from the public."
FDA Commissioner Robert Califf is adamant about the need to fight misinformation, calling it the most common cause of death in the United States, but has yet to address the wave of misinformation surrounding the risks of e-cigarettes. Speaking to Reason, Dave Dobbins, recently the chief operating officer of the Truth Initiative, the nation's largest anti-tobacco nonprofit who has since acted as consultant to the tobacco company Altria on harm reduction, fears that withholding truthful information from the public could further undermine the FDA's credibility. "I think that if you're a public health authority and you're caught not telling the truth, it will have long-term consequences that are with the next time people need information from you that's true and really important, they may not listen to you."
Dobbins believes the ALA has misread the strength of evidence around e-cigarettes rather than Siegel's stance that the nonprofit has taken an ideological position over a scientific one. "I disagree with their reading of the science, but I believe that's what motivates them, not a desire to suppress true speech more than just a very different interpretation of the science than many, many health authorities," Dobbins says.
Still, Dobbins, who stood shoulder to shoulder with the ALA on tobacco regulation for decades, believes they've called this issue wrong. If the FDA listens to the ALA, "it will prolong smoking as a behavior in the United States," he says. According to one estimate, if smoking was largely replaced by vaping, it could result in 6.6 million fewer premature deaths from from 2016 to 2100.
There is perhaps an underlying fear among many anti-tobacco groups that if the public knows how much safer e-cigarettes are than cigarettes, then many people who never would've used nicotine will start doing so. But "you don't get to live in a super virtuous world where nobody does anything," says Dobbins.
Besides, "in order to get people to comply with your vision of virtue, inevitably, you have to engage in coercion. And coercion has societal costs and health costs as well, and you have to take those into account."
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
Don't take horse past, yo, seriously y'all, stop it.
Take note, THIS... ladies and gentledudes, THIS is how you write about Burning Man.
Americans are struggling to put food on the table, there is probably not much sympathy to go around for attendees of a festival who seek ‘purposeful discomfort’, only to find precisely that on arrival.
Goddamnit, Spiked, you're the Pimp of the hour.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
>>Mad Max meets OnlyFans aesthetic.
all days ending in y at Casa Del Dillinger.
Customer: oohs ‘at then?
Cart Master: I dunno. Must be a tech bro or conceptual artist.
Customer: Why?
Cart Master: Because after a few hours in the mud, he’s got better places to be.
"I think I'll go for a walk ..."
Trust the science.
The key problem is that we don’t know “how much safer e-cigarettes are than cigarettes”.
Seriously, we’ve just got 20 years of vaping data, pretty thin on the early years, particularly confounded by the fact that so many vapers are ex-smokers. And most lung diseases caused by smoking take twenty pack-years or more to show up.
So, do vapes cause a hundredth the lung issues? A tenth? Half as many? Is there a particular flavoring that, after a couple decades of chronic exposure, is actually twice as bad for the lungs than smoking, but we haven’t teased its signal out of the overall population data? Everybody’s got their own extrapolations from the limited data available and their own estimates of the unknowns.
I think the American Lung Association’s extrapolations and estimates are wrong, but I damn well can’t disprove them; at best I can cite other experts’ extrapolations and estimates. And to quote Richard Feynman, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Here's some stats you won't hear:
A study was conducted of actual measurements of the smoke taken in, by non-smoking residents, of a household, where the smoker lit up a pack a day.
The actual smoke inhaled by the non-smokers totaled the equivalent of one cigarette per year.
That was a study that the "second-hand" smoke people didn't want you to hear.
So you never did.
You have a cite for that? Be interested to read the study.
Is there a reason to trust that study over the 1000's of studies that say second hand smoke is much more harmful, such as this:
Thus, while on average nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke have about 1% the cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine) as smokers, they have 14% as much 4-aminobiphenyl (a potent human carcinogen) adducted to their hemoglobin (Hammond et al., 1993).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219569/
Just for the record:
1. Vaping products are NOT tobacco.
2. You can vape without nicotine.
We certainly wouldn't want the FDA to fall behind the CDC in the disinformation arms race, would we?
Has anybody notified the Surgeon General? I hear at one point he was looking to expand his misinformation collection.
If the ADL wants to stay cautious as many others have done, so be it. Calling it misleading is stupid. The Cochrane review was about adults and e cigs helped a bit more than patches etc. for at least 6 months. Meanwhile,'... researchers concluded that adolescents and young adults who used e-cigarettes were 3.6 times as likely to smoke cigarettes later in life when compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes... ' (Hence the tobacco companies are spending billions to get kids hooked on vaping).
Nearly all habitual smokers start when they 11-15 years old. Very few begin after that. If the tobacco companies can't get them hooked during that age window, they never will, and they know that. Regardless of what their PR campaigns claim about them wanting only adult customers, they always have programs in place to hook their next generation of young smokers.
Think that’s old data you cite. Very very few 11-15 year olds smoke now, and most teens who vape vape THC more so than nicotine. But the ALA conveniently ignores this.
Think you're wrong.
https://assets.tobaccofreekids.org/factsheets/0127.pdf
CFTFK is not an objective source since their whole existence is based on underage smoking/vaping, so they will find data to show this.
Which tobacco company do you work for?
When I was in the Army in the 1970s, the government helpfully included free packs of cigarettes in our C-rations. Me and many of my Army buddies started smoking then, not when we were 11-15 years old.
One thing that I could never understand is why the Federal Government was never held accountable for it's role in getting people hooked on cigarettes? Until 1997 the largest wholesaler of tobacco products was the Federal Government. In the early 80's I was in the Navy. While on ship, I was entitled to a cigarette ration. From WWI until the 80's cigarettes were included with field rations.
The ALA is just trying to protect it's turf. Yes it's a "non-profit" organization, but, there's a bunch of people pulling in a nice paycheck there, that wouldn't like to see it go away.
Yes, if you use nicotine, you are more likely to use nicotine in other forms. Doesn't seem very interesting.
Smoking is far, far less prevalent overall and particularly among young people than even 10 years ago. Can't the anti-smoking people just take the win?
They are more addicted to power than smokers are to nicotine. 🙂
It's never enough. They always want more.
The ALA is fighting to stay relevant. It needs those donations to keep coming in so that the Liberals in charge can keep getting their paychecks. If they take "the win", there's no reason for them to exist.
It's not just that. If you use one psychoactive, you're likelier than the average person to use other psychoactives, and the more psychoactives you use, the more other psychoactives you're likely to use. Not because using one psychoactive makes you use others, but because some people are just more interested in their effects generally.
"researchers concluded that adolescents and young adults who used e-cigarettes were 3.6 times as likely to smoke cigarettes later in life when compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes"
So if there were no vapes they would start with cigs.
Do those who did not use e-cigs include both smokers and non-smokers?
adolescents and young adults ... Hence the tobacco companies are spending billions to get kids hooked on vaping
Giving shitty meta-analyses more credit than due, the cohort in the study you cite was predominantly 18-30 yr. olds. If you're trying to be more honest and open than tobacco companies, why conflate the two deceptively? Is it because "We have to restrict e-cigarettes because 18-30 yrs. olds might choose to vape and then go on to smoke." makes you sound like the overtly authoritarian fucks that you are?
The whole thing is a F’En joke. Being Black has a higher rate of lung cancer than smoking cigarettes does. Go check the pulled data for lung cancer. That’s exactly why they had to narrate some BS about heart disease. It’s just one witch-hunt after the next and all of it complete BS. The very original study couldn’t muster statistical significance by regular standards so they hijacked accepted standards and made their own.
The tobacco companies didn't racketeer for anything but trying to get the government entities to stop lying and obey established epidemiological standards. It was bloody obvious. Secondhand smoke kills? In what amount of F'Up delusion does that happen?
And it’s seen everywhere. Smoking is down 1/8th what it was yet lung cancer hasn’t hardly budged even to 1/2 what is was. Death is down due to medical advancement. It’s a re-enforcing biased-delusion implanted by government-propaganda and yuppies who want to be-rid the entire earth of smells they don’t like.
...and P.S. I still haven't found any Constitutional enumeration for either organization. F'En Nazi's.
Well, the departments are part of the administrative branch so don't need to be specifically provided by the Constitution. However, much of the power they wield is definitely not provided for in the Constitution and in fact largely prohibited by the Bill of Rights. Congress and the Pres can set up all sorts of departments - it's what they do that's the problem.
The problem is so extensive that correcting these false beliefs forms part of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) 5-year strategic plan.
They need five years for that?
the ALA [American Lung Association]...demands the FDA "remove language from the description for this goal that references informing adults about the relative risk of tobacco products"
At this point, the only explanation for the intransigence is the CTP and ALA are wholly owned by the tobacco industry.
The government needs five years to come up with a plan to scratch its own ass.
"I think that if you're a public health authority and you're caught not telling the truth, it will have long-term consequences that are with the next time people need information from you that's true and really important, they may not listen to you."
May I introduce you to Anthony Fauci?
If they didn't have a Nazi-Empire agenda they wouldn't have a reason to lie. Once upon a time information didn't come by 'gov-gun' strength behind it. The very root of a ton of problems.
The Nazis were a specific political party that came to prominence in Germany in the 1930s. Though there are still some who claim to be Nazis, we don't have a Nazi Empire anywhere anymore. Socialist? Fascist? Yes and yes. Not Nazi.
Not even Soup Nazis?
Germans coined the abbreviation Nazi for [Na]tional So[zi]alist. I wasn’t aware that only Germans from 1930 could use that synonym.
It certainly describes the overwhelming UN-Constitutional part of our national government.
It's only "misinformation" if they aren't the ones pushing it.
As a smoker who transitioned to vaping many years ago and has never regretted it, it has been nuts watching the propaganda campaign against it succeed so effectively.
Amen, DD. I smoked cigarettes for 35 years and have been vaping nicotine since then. There's just no comparison between the two, yet policies are being set by people who (in all likelihood) have never done either. What the hell would they know about it?
Luckily, trying to stop people who are discreet about vaping is very difficult. I vape in restaurants, in stores, and even on airplanes regularly. No one sees it, no one smells it, no one can even tell I'm doing it. Screw these Nicotine Nazis.
> According to one estimate, if smoking was largely replaced by vaping, it could result in 6.6 million fewer premature deaths from from 2016 to 2100.
Yea, but think of how many more douchebags we'd have to see standing around sucking on the things so they can marvel at their silly clouds.
I'm pretty sure that the only people who vape are people who went through (or are still going through) a goth phase leftover from the 90s. Possibly emokids too.
We're not all hipster douchebags. Some of us vape plain old OTC products that hardly produce any clouds at all. If you weren't paying attention you wouldn't notice it at all.
Then why do it, if you don't mind me asking? Is it just addiction and that dopamine rush that you're substituting for a good 'ol fashioned cigarette, or is there more to it?
I did it to lose weight. I just wish they had them in flavors like meat and mushroom rather than just dessert.
Do you drink coffee, AT? If so, why?
What I've read is that nicotine by itself is no more harmful than caffeine. What's harmful is inhaling the combustion products from smoking. As an ex-smoker & current vaper, that's been my direct experience too.
As Inevitable said, if you're not paying attention you won't even notice. I often vape nicotine in public, but since people can't see it or smell it, no one notices or complains.
Sad to see the American Lung Association still shilling for the drug companies that peddle smoking cessation products, including those containing nicotine. For an obscure reason slapping on a nicotine cigarette patch or chewing Nicorette is A-Ok but vaping nicotine is deadly. Actually the reason for ALA’s hysteria is that it is paid by the medicinal nicotine purveyors to pressure governments to do what they do best: ban products and actions people enjoy.
Not only vaping nicotine, but vaping THC, CBD, or just flavorings.
"According to one estimate, if smoking was largely replaced by vaping, it could result in 6.6 million fewer premature deaths from from 2016 to 2100. "
That's it? Even if that's just the US, that seems off by at least one order of magnitude.