Report Finds Definitive Evidence E-Cigs Less Harmful Than Cigs
Return to Vaping Blogs

The Vape Debate won big from a report published this month by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicines.

The report, titled Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes, was written to consolidate the scientific literature regarding the e-cigarettes. Specifically, what their level of harm to humans is as compared to their combustible alternatives.

Here are the main conclusions from the study:

1. E-Cig Vapor Contains Fewer Toxins

“Overall, e-cigarette aerosol contains fewer numbers and lower levels of toxicants than smoke from combustible tobacco cigarettes. Nicotine exposure can mimic that found with use of combustible tobacco cigarettes, but it is highly variable. The exposure to nicotine and toxicants from the aerosolization of flavorings and humectants depends on device characteristics and how the device is used.”

2. E-Cigs Are Less Risky With Less Severe Effects

“Overall, the evidence reviewed by the committee suggests that e-cigarettes are not without biological effects in humans. For instance, use of e-cigarettes results in dependence on the devices, though with apparently less risk and severity than that of combustible tobacco cigarettes. Yet the implications for long-term effects on morbidity and mortality are not yet clear.”

“Across a range of studies and outcomes, e-cigarettes appear to pose less risk to an individual than combustible tobacco cigarettes.”

3. E-Cigs Aid Adults In Quitting Smoking

“Overall, the evidence suggests that while e-cigarettes might cause youth who use them to transition to use of combustible tobacco products, they might also increase adult cessation of combustible tobacco cigarettes.”

4. Flawed Current Body of E-Cig Literature

“The committee identified gaps in the literature in every aspect in its work and provides overarching categories of research needs and specific research suggestions within the final chapters of each of the three major sections of the report. These overarching categories include: (1) addressing gaps in substantive knowledge and (2) improving research methods and quality through protocol and methods validation and development, including the use of appropriate study design.