Boston Public Health Commission Considering Regulation to Ban Electronic Cigarette Use in the Workplace

The Boston Public Health Commission is considering a new regulation which would ban the use of electronic cigarettes in the workplace. The regulation would also restrict the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors and require a permit for selling these products.

The proposed regulation cites as a justification for the ban on electronic cigarette use (vaping) in the workplace: "the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has conducted laboratory tests that found e-cigarettes contain toxic chemicals and carcinogens; and the health effects of involuntary exposure to e-cigarette vapors containing these chemicals and carcinogens is unknown."

The Rest of the Story

The FDA scared the public and implied that electronic cigarettes present a substantial risk of cancer to users by reporting its laboratory finding that electronic cigarettes are dangerous because they contain carcinogens. The FDA failed to inform the public about the level of carcinogens they detected and how it compares to the level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in regular cigarettes and in nicotine replacement products. The truth is that the FDA found only trace levels of carcinogens, comparable to those found in nicotine patches and nicotine gum, and orders of magnitude below the levels of these same carcinogens in regular cigarettes.

The rest of the story is that:

• The FDA found only trace levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in electronic cigarettes, comparable to those found in FDA-approved nicotine replacement products like nicotine patches and nicotine gum.
• The levels of carcinogens that have been detected in electronic cigarettes are orders of magnitude lower than in regular cigarettes, indicating that electronic cigarettes are likely much safer than regular cigarettes in terms of cancer risk.
• The minute levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in electronic cigarettes are a necessary result of the extraction of nicotine from tobacco. Overall, these devices deliver nicotine with only a few other chemicals, compared to the delivery of nicotine plus tens of thousands of chemicals and more than 60 proven carcinogens in regular cigarettes.
• There is no evidence, and little reason to believe, that there would be any significant exposure to carcinogens among bystanders in the proximity of electronic cigarette users.

As far as the presence of "toxic chemicals" goes, the FDA reported only one such chemical (diethylene glycol) and it was present in just one cartridge of one brand of electronic cigarettes. Subsequent to that investigation, multiple brands of electronic cigarettes have been tested for diethylene glycol and not a single brand has been found to contain this chemical. It appears that this was an anomaly caused by one company's use of a non-pharmaceutical grade of propylene glycol. The use of pharmaceutical grade propylene glycol should not result in the presence of diethylene glycol in the electronic cigarette, which appears to be the case with every other brand of electronic cigarettes that has been tested subsequently.

The public needs to understand that there is presently no more scientific justification for banning electronic cigarette use in the workplace than there is for banning the use of the nicotine inhaler, which many smokers are using in an attempt to quit smoking. Both contain similar levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, and there is no evidence that the use of these inhaled products results in any significant carcinogenic exposure among bystanders.

Moreover, the statement that we don't know what vapers are inhaling is a myth. Electronic cigarette emissions have been tested in numerous laboratory studies. Cahn and I reviewed these studies in our review article published in the Journal of Public Health Policy.

We concluded as follows:

"As ~5300 of the estimated 10 000–100 000 chemicals in cigarette smoke have ever been identified,[4] we already have more comprehensive knowledge of the chemical constituents of electronic cigarettes than tobacco ones. We were able to identify 16 studies[5–17] that have characterized, quite extensively, the components contained in electronic cigarette liquid and vapor using gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (Table 1). These studies demonstrate that the primary components of electronic cigarette cartridges are propylene glycol (PG), glycerin, and nicotine. Of the other chemicals identified, the FDA has focused on potential health hazards associated with two: tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) and diethylene glycol (DEG).[5]

TSNAs have been detected in two studies at trace levels.[5,6] The maximum level of total TSNAs reported was 8.2 ng/g.[6] This compares with a similar level of 8.0 ng in a nicotine patch, and it is orders of magnitude lower than TSNA levels in regular cigarettes.[18] Table 2 shows that electronic cigarettes contain only 0.07–0.2 per cent of the TSNAs present in cigarettes, a 500-fold to 1400-fold reduction in concentration. The presence of DEG in one of the 18 cartridges studied by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is worrisome, yet none of the other 15 studies found any DEG. The use of a non-pharmaceutical grade of PG may explain this
contamination.

Other than TSNAs and DEG, few, if any, chemicals at levels detected in electronic cigarettes raise serious health concerns. Although the existing research does not warrant a conclusion that electronic cigarettes are safe in absolute terms and further clinical studies are needed to comprehensively assess the safety of electronic cigarettes, a preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products."

In summary then, there is presently no evidence that electronic cigarettes pose any known health threat to bystanders. In other words, there is no evidence that secondhand vaping poses any health hazards.

Perhaps it would be helpful here for me to present my philosophy regarding the criterion that justifies government action to ban a personal behavior in order to protect the health of bystanders. The criterion I have always adhered to is that the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that the behavior in question endangers the health of others. There must be substantial evidence, in other words, that a health hazard exists. The mere possibility of a health hazard is not, in my opinion, sufficient to justify banning a widespread public behavior.

For example, when I have lobbied for laws and regulations to ban smoking in the workplace, my testimony has always been based on substantial evidence of the health hazards associated with secondhand smoke exposure. I never asked any city council or state legislative body to ban smoking in workplaces simply because of the "possibility" that secondhand smoke exposure might be harmful. I, and other anti-smoking advocates, did not demand government intervention until sufficient scientific evidence had accumulated to support the contention that secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace was a cause of health harm among exposed nonsmoking workers.

There are many exposures, which, from time to time, the media or the public associate with potential harm to the public. If government agencies banned these exposures every time there was mere speculation that the exposure might be harmful, it would prove to be an undue and overly burdensome level of intervention in the workplace.

For example, Action on Smoking and Health has argued that the breathe of smokers is itself toxic and has promoted the idea of banning smokers from the workplace simply because of speculation that exhaled toxins could threaten the health of nonsmokers. Would we not all agree that for the government to take such an intrusive action without actual evidence of harms to nonsmokers caused by exhaled chemicals from smoking employees would be inappropriate?

I have two other concerns about setting a precedent of the government banning behaviors in the absence of scientific evidence that those behaviors are causing health harm. First, might it undermine efforts to protect the public in situations where we really do have evidence of harm? In this case, I fear that basing a non-vaping regulation on no scientific evidence of harm could undermine efforts in other states - which do not yet have workplace smoking laws - to protect the public from the hazards of secondhand smoke in the workplace.

Second, banning electronic cigarette use in the workplace could place an undue burden on smokers who are trying to quit smoking using electronic cigarettes or ex-smokers who have successfully quit using e-cigarettes and who are trying to stay smoke-free.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I do not oppose the aspect of the proposed regulation regarding the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors. Certainly it is reasonable to make sure that electronic cigarettes cannot be easily purchased by minors. My comments relate solely to the portion of the proposed regulation that bans vaping in the workplace.