The US FDA, while authorising sale of certain e-cigarette brands, stated: For these products, the FDA determined that the potential benefit to smokers who switch completely or significantly reduce their cigarette use, would outweigh the risk to youth. Link: https://bit.ly/3JpbNS4
This does not appear to be an anti-vaping stance, even though the agency has taken a dim view of flavoured e-liquids (though please keep in mind that 'tobacco' is also a flavour, and so is mint which the agency has allowed). E-cigarettes are now allowed for sale in over 70 nations, which include the entire western countries, with some among them led by the UK & NZ actively encouraging smokers to switch with the aim of bringing down smoking-related mortality and morbidity.
In the context of China which has the largest number of smokers in the world, a shift towards lower-risk smoking alternatives can have major positive public health impact, for which the Chinese tobacco monopoly must adapt to the new environment instead of seeking to block out innovations to protect its massive cigarette sales.
Ofcourse e-cigarette regulation is a must, but its overall aim should be to prevent teen uptake and encourage current smokers to switch, rather than to obliterate the vaping market such that cigarette use and its associated harms are perpetuated. Given that majority of the world's e-cigarettes are produced in China, how well or poorly the country regulates its e-cigarette industry will also have global impact on dealing the tobacco crisis which claims 8 mn lives every year.
Finally, the claim made in People's Daily that "e-cigarettes are essentially cigarettes" is too simplistic to be accurate as vaping is significantly less harmful than smoking which it is meant to replace. Would anyone, for instance, claim greener cars are also cars and therefore should be subject to the same barriers as polluting cars?
The US FDA, while authorising sale of certain e-cigarette brands, stated: For these products, the FDA determined that the potential benefit to smokers who switch completely or significantly reduce their cigarette use, would outweigh the risk to youth. Link: https://bit.ly/3JpbNS4
This does not appear to be an anti-vaping stance, even though the agency has taken a dim view of flavoured e-liquids (though please keep in mind that 'tobacco' is also a flavour, and so is mint which the agency has allowed). E-cigarettes are now allowed for sale in over 70 nations, which include the entire western countries, with some among them led by the UK & NZ actively encouraging smokers to switch with the aim of bringing down smoking-related mortality and morbidity.
In the context of China which has the largest number of smokers in the world, a shift towards lower-risk smoking alternatives can have major positive public health impact, for which the Chinese tobacco monopoly must adapt to the new environment instead of seeking to block out innovations to protect its massive cigarette sales.
Ofcourse e-cigarette regulation is a must, but its overall aim should be to prevent teen uptake and encourage current smokers to switch, rather than to obliterate the vaping market such that cigarette use and its associated harms are perpetuated. Given that majority of the world's e-cigarettes are produced in China, how well or poorly the country regulates its e-cigarette industry will also have global impact on dealing the tobacco crisis which claims 8 mn lives every year.
Finally, the claim made in People's Daily that "e-cigarettes are essentially cigarettes" is too simplistic to be accurate as vaping is significantly less harmful than smoking which it is meant to replace. Would anyone, for instance, claim greener cars are also cars and therefore should be subject to the same barriers as polluting cars?
The US FDA, while authorising sale of certain e-cigarette brands, stated: For these products, the FDA determined that the potential benefit to smokers who switch completely or significantly reduce their cigarette use, would outweigh the risk to youth. Link: https://bit.ly/3JpbNS4
This does not appear to be an anti-vaping stance, even though the agency has taken a dim view of flavoured e-liquids (though please keep in mind that 'tobacco' is also a flavour, and so is mint which the agency has allowed). E-cigarettes are now allowed for sale in over 70 nations, which include the entire western countries, with some among them led by the UK & NZ actively encouraging smokers to switch with the aim of bringing down smoking-related mortality and morbidity.
In the context of China which has the largest number of smokers in the world, a shift towards lower-risk smoking alternatives can have major positive public health impact, for which the Chinese tobacco monopoly must adapt to the new environment instead of seeking to block out innovations to protect its massive cigarette sales.
Ofcourse e-cigarette regulation is a must, but its overall aim should be to prevent teen uptake and encourage current smokers to switch, rather than to obliterate the vaping market such that cigarette use and its associated harms are perpetuated. Given that majority of the world's e-cigarettes are produced in China, how well or poorly the country regulates its e-cigarette industry will also have global impact on dealing the tobacco crisis which claims 8 mn lives every year.
Finally, the claim made in People's Daily that "e-cigarettes are essentially cigarettes" is too simplistic to be accurate as vaping is significantly less harmful than smoking which it is meant to replace. Would anyone, for instance, claim greener cars are also cars and therefore should be subject to the same barriers as polluting cars?
The US FDA, while authorising sale of certain e-cigarette brands, stated: For these products, the FDA determined that the potential benefit to smokers who switch completely or significantly reduce their cigarette use, would outweigh the risk to youth. Link: https://bit.ly/3JpbNS4
This does not appear to be an anti-vaping stance, even though the agency has taken a dim view of flavoured e-liquids (though please keep in mind that 'tobacco' is also a flavour, and so is mint which the agency has allowed). E-cigarettes are now allowed for sale in over 70 nations, which include the entire western countries, with some among them led by the UK & NZ actively encouraging smokers to switch with the aim of bringing down smoking-related mortality and morbidity.
In the context of China which has the largest number of smokers in the world, a shift towards lower-risk smoking alternatives can have major positive public health impact, for which the Chinese tobacco monopoly must adapt to the new environment instead of seeking to block out innovations to protect its massive cigarette sales.
Ofcourse e-cigarette regulation is a must, but its overall aim should be to prevent teen uptake and encourage current smokers to switch, rather than to obliterate the vaping market such that cigarette use and its associated harms are perpetuated. Given that majority of the world's e-cigarettes are produced in China, how well or poorly the country regulates its e-cigarette industry will also have global impact on dealing the tobacco crisis which claims 8 mn lives every year.
Finally, the claim made in People's Daily that "e-cigarettes are essentially cigarettes" is too simplistic to be accurate as vaping is significantly less harmful than smoking which it is meant to replace. Would anyone, for instance, claim greener cars are also cars and therefore should be subject to the same barriers as polluting cars?