There has been a lot of reactionary criticism against e cigs lately as states begin to tighten up thier regulations. As more and more “health studies” continue to surface, it seems that the majority of news coming out on electronic cigarettes has been negative. But before drawing any conclusions regarding the health concerns surrounding electronic cigarette use, a complete understanding of these health concerns should be provided.

Here are three common misconceptions recently published in a report by Director of California Department of Public Health and State Health Officer, Ron Chapman, MD, MPH, followed by the more accurate truths behind these poorly executed studies and their results:

“E-cigarettes contain nicotine, a highly addictive neurotoxin. E-cigarettes do not emit water vapor, but a concoction of chemicals toxic to human cells in the form of an aerosol.”

This statement is completely taken out of context and is purposefully misleading readers towards a biased opinion. Nicotine is only toxic when it is ingested, applied to the skin, or overdosed. But you could say that about nearly every household product you use. There is no “concoction” of toxic chemicals, especially when compared with cigarette smoke.

Here are the facts: e cig vapor contains traces of nitrosamines (commonly known carcinogens), but are present in levels comparable to most medicinal products such as nicotine patches and gum, and at concentration levels 500 to 1,400 times lower than tobacco cigarettes. Nickel, lead, and cadmium can also be found in e cig vapor, but in forms and amounts that are nontoxic.



What should have been the topic of discussion is the risk involved with the long-term inhalation of propylene glycol. Electronic cigarettes haven’t been on the market long enough to accurately record a long-term study. However, what can be said is that propylene glycol is generally regarded as safe by the FDA, and is used in products such as toothpaste, cosmetics, some foods, and in asthma inhalers.

“There is no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes help smokers successfully quit traditional cigarettes.”

The California report utilizes a study by Katrina Vickerman in an effort to say users are a third less likely to quit smoking cigarettes. Michael Siegel, a Boston University professor of public health, explains why Vickerman’s findings are useless and shouldn’t be used in any case against e cigs: “Instead, it estimated quit rates among many smokers who were not using e-cigarettes in their quit attempt at all!” writes Siegel. Vickerman would later go on record agreeing with Siegel’s statement.

“Research suggests that kids who may otherwise have never smoked cigarettes are now becoming addicted to nicotine through the use of e-cigarettes and other e-products.”

Yet another iffy statement backed on faulty studies. The California report cited a survey that associated teens using e cigs with higher and more sustained levels of smoking. But in all actuality, the study was a cross-sectional survey that was unable to determine whether or not teens using e cigs had transitioned from tobacco smoking or vice versa. You can’t determine whether or not teens would have taken up smoking with or without the help of e cigs using one-point-in-time data.



There is no evidence supporting the theory that e cigs are a gateway product to tobacco smoking. If anything, the trend in adolescent smoking is that teens who once were smokers are now using vaping products. The more important and less heralded news that deserves the spotlight, is that teen smoking rates are at a historic low.