| Literature DB >> 31463564 |
Aditya Bhalerao1, Farzane Sivandzade1, Sabrina Rahman Archie1, Luca Cucullo2,3.
Abstract
Tobacco continues to kill about 0.48 million Americans per year and there are currently 34.3 million smokers in the USA. As a consequence of the First Surgeon General's Report on Tobacco in 1964, tobacco control interventions on part of the government led to a significant decline in conventional tobacco product usage over the last few decades. However, more recently, a new entity in the form of electronic cigarettes has risen rapidly and has exposed a younger population to a plethora of dangerous consequences. Looking at e-cigarettes from the perspective of tobacco control however raises a lot of challenges. There is little doubt that existing smokers of combustible cigarettes who switch to e-cigarettes will be switching to a less harmful product. However, if the younger generation begins using e-cigarettes as a result of targeted marketing, appealing flavors and 'safer alternative' perception, decades of progress made in conventional tobacco control will be negated. Governments at the federal, state, and local levels have a mandate to once again implement new public health policies to ensure that non-conventional tobacco products like e-cigarettes are available as smoking cessation tools for existing smokers but at the same time do not play a role in ruining the health of future generations through addiction and disease. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the present scenario of regulations and policies impacting public health with respect to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) with the objective of providing a meaningful and balanced view of the challenges at hand with plausible recommendations. RECENTEntities:
Keywords: E-cigarettes; Electronic cigarettes; Electronic nicotine delivery systems; Policy; Public health; Regulation
Year: 2019 PMID: 31463564 PMCID: PMC6713696 DOI: 10.1007/s11886-019-1204-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep ISSN: 1523-3782 Impact factor: 2.931
Constituents of ENDS Aerosol [19]
| Serial number | Aerosol component | Health risk | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Ultrafine particles | Asthma, vasoconstriction leading to cardiovascular problems | [ |
| 2. | Benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, cadmium, lead, and nickel | Carcinogen, reproductive toxin | [ |
| 3. | Propylene glycol | Irritant of the eyes, throat and airways, long-term exposure leads to asthma | [ |
| 4. | Propylene oxide | Carcinogen | [ |
| 5. | Diethylene glycol | renal and neurologic toxicity | [ |
| 6. | Diacetyl and acetyl propionyl (sweet flavorings) | bronchiolitis obliterans | [ |
| 7. | Carbonyls | Cardiovascular toxicity | [ |
| 8. | Copper nanoparticles | DNA fragmentation, mitochondrial stress | [ |
Timeline of policies/rules/regulations enforced at the federal level
| No. | Date | Name of agency | Regulation particulars | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | June, 2009 | Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and Human Services. | Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. [ | Authorizing FDA to regulate tobacco products including e-cigarettes. It led to the creation of center for tobacco products. |
| 2. | April, 2014 | Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and Human Services. | Proposed Deeming Regulations [ | Authorized the FDA to put heavy restrictions on most of the existing unregulated e-cigarette manufacturing industry and required premarket tobacco applications (PMTA’s) for new manufacturers |
Law(s) in effect across all States & the District of Columbia in the USA (March 15, 2019) [49]
| State | Law(s) that define e-cigarettes | Law(s) taxing e-cigarettes | Law(s) on product packaging of e-cigarettes | Law(s) restricting youth access to e-cigarettes | Law(s) requiring licenses for retail sales of e-cigarettes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | Yes | ||||
| 2 | Alaska | Yes | Yes | |||
| 3 | Arizona | Yes | ||||
| 4 | Arkansas | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 5 | California | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 6 | Colorado | Yes | Yes | |||
| 7 | Connecticut | Yes | Yes | |||
| 8 | Delaware | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (vape liquid) | |
| 9 | District of Columbia | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 10 | Florida | Yes | ||||
| 11 | Georgia | Yes | ||||
| 12 | Hawaii | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 13 | Idaho | Yes | ||||
| 14 | Illinois | Yes | Yes | |||
| 15 | Indiana | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 16 | Iowa | Yes | Yes | |||
| 17 | Kansas | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 18 | Kentucky | Yes | ||||
| 19 | Louisiana | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 20 | Maine | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 21 | Maryland | Yes | Yes | |||
| 22 | Massachusetts | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 23 | Michigan | |||||
| 24 | Minnesota | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 25 | Mississippi | Yes | ||||
| 26 | Missouri | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 27 | Montana | Yes | Yes | |||
| 28 | Nebraska | Yes | ||||
| 29 | Nevada | Yes | ||||
| 30 | New Hampshire | Yes | Yes | |||
| 31 | New Jersey | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 32 | New Mexico | Yes | Yes | |||
| 33 | New York | Yes | Yes | |||
| 34 | North Carolina | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (non-local manufacturers) |
| 35 | North Dakota | Yes | Yes | |||
| 36 | Ohio | Yes | Yes | |||
| 37 | Oklahoma | Yes | ||||
| 38 | Oregon | Yes | Yes | |||
| 39 | Pennsylvania | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 40 | Rhode Island | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 41 | South Carolina | Yes | ||||
| 42 | South Dakota | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 43 | Tennessee | Yes | Yes | |||
| 44 | Texas | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 45 | Utah | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 46 | Vermont | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 47 | Virginia | Yes | Yes | |||
| 48 | Washington | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 49 | West Virginia | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 50 | Wisconsin | Yes | ||||
| 51 | Wyoming | Yes | Yes | Yes |