Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Mar;5(2):50-61.
doi: 10.1177/2040622314521271.

Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes

Affiliations
Review

Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes

Daniela Saitta et al. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2014 Mar.

Abstract

A growing body of scientific studies show that e-cigarettes may serve as an acceptable substitute for smoking tobacco cigarettes, thereby reducing or eliminating exposure to harmful elements in smoke. The success of e-cigarettes is such that sales of these products are rapidly gaining on traditional cigarettes. The rapidly evolving phenomenon is raising concerns for the health community, pharmaceutical industry, health regulators and state governments. Obviously, these products need to be adequately regulated, primarily to protect users. Depending on the form and intended scope, certain regulatory decisions may have diverse unintended consequences on public health and may face many different challenges. Ideally, before any regulations are enacted, the regulatory body will require sufficient scientific research to verify that a problem does exist, quantify the problem, explore all potential solutions including making no change at all, determine the possible consequences of each, and then select the solution that is best for public health. Here we present an overview on the existing and deeming regulatory decisions for electronic cigarettes. We challenge them, based on the mounting scientific evidence with the ultimate goal of proposing appropriate recommendations while minimizing potential unintended consequences of ill-informed regulation.

Keywords: cigarette smoking; electronic cigarettes; nicotine use; regulation; regulatory agencies; tobacco harm reduction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement: None of the authors have any competing financial interests to declare, with the exception of RP. RP has received lecture fees from Pfizer and GSK, a research grant from Pfizer, and he served as a consultant for Pfizer, Global Health Alliance for treatment of tobacco dependence, and Arbi Group Srl (the Italian distributor for Categoria electronic cigarettes).

References

    1. Adelman D., Grainger M., Ayala V., Paxton K. (2013) Tobacco: New Years’ Resolutions + E-Cigs = Weaker Volumes? New York: Morgan Stanley Research North America
    1. Bates C. (2012) European Union making bad policy on nicotine – five ways to make it better. The counterfactual. Available at: www.clivebates.com/?p=697 (accessed 30 August 2013).
    1. Beard E., Bruguera C., Brown J., McNeill A., West R. (2013) Was the expansion of the marketing license for nicotine replacement therapy in the United Kingdom to include smoking reduction associated with changes in use and incidence of quit attempts? Nicotine Tob Res 15: 1777–1781 - PubMed
    1. Bullen C., Howe C., Laugesen M., McRobbie H., Parag V., Williman J., et al. (2013) Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 382: 1629–1637 - PubMed
    1. Bullen C., McRobbie H., Thornley S., Glover M., Lin R., Laugesen M. (2010) Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross-over trial. Tob Control 19: 98–103 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources