FDA urged to examine vapors from e-cigarettes
WASHINGTON — Eight members of the Senate are calling on the Food and Drug Administration to look into new research suggesting that some electronic cigarettes can produce dangerous carcinogens similar to those from traditional cigarettes.
In a letter sent on Thursday, the Democratic lawmakers say that the FDA should work to protect e-cigarette users and those nearby from cancer-causing vapors apparently produced by high-powered nicotine devices, known as tank systems.
Electronic cigarettes mainly consist of a battery, heating coil and a tank that holds flavored liquid nicotine. As users puff on the e-cigarette, the battery heats the coil and the liquid is turned into a vapor that is inhaled like smoke from a traditional cigarette. Tank systems are generally larger e-cigarettes — about the size of an electronic toothbrush — that can hold more nicotine and an extended battery supply.
“We simply cannot afford to lag behind in our complete understanding of the health consequences to the user and bystander of these and other advanced nicotine delivery products,” states the letter. It was signed by Democratic Sens. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Barbara Boxer of California, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Jack Reed and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Studies first reported by The New York Times suggest that the devices get hot enough to produce toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde, a carcinogen found in traditional cigarettes.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Kentucky firefighters recovering from ice stunt shocks
- U.S. could have done better, says brother of slain journalist
- Oklahoma City officer accused of sex assaults
- Reid apologizes for jokes at Asian business event
- Charities reconsider fundraising activities
- Mudslides plague Washington state after wildfire strips hillsides
- Rehabilitated snowy owl dies in Minnesota
- Obama pressured to obliterate ISIS as attack risks rise
- Retailers warned about software
- Ferguson residents fear return of rioting, looting
- Hackers hit 25,000 government workers