No one knows if that is true yet, which is one reason the regulation was created. Again, from the American Lung Association:
> Absent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, there is no way for the public health and medical community or consumers to know what chemicals are contained in e-cigarettes (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems or ENDS) or what the short- and long-term health implications might be.
http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/tobacco/oversight-and-re...
In addition, e-cig vs. tobacco cig is not a zero sum. E-cig use is growing among youth who have never smoked before. If the e-cig market was all smokers switching to e-cigs, your comment would make sense, but that's not the market.
From what I've read - evidence has been piling up that ecigs are in fact a far healthier alternative to tobacco.
Example (of many): "E-cigarettes are not completely risk free but when compared to smoking, evidence shows they carry just a fraction of the harm. The problem is people increasingly think they are at least as harmful and this may be keeping millions of smokers from quitting."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...
From my point of view, the US government has prioritized tax revenue over public health.
I'm certainly NOT against reasonable laws and health regulation - but overbearing, expensive regulations will most likely kill more people by causing them to continue tobacco smoking. The vast majority of smokers are poor - and fewer of them will be able to afford ecigs under these regulations.
It would be reasonable to expand and federally regulate the current system of third party lab testing to include all liquids and consumer equipment. Almost all domestically produced base liquids and nicotines are FDA approved. Most consumer equipment (coils, batteries, etc) I've seen at shops are also lab tested.
But instead, the government has again aligned with tobacco companies to maintain their tax base and tobacco profits. It's a disgusting abuse of regulatory powers.
Nonsense, reputable manufacturers are very straightforward about what is in their juice. Furthermore, while FDA oversight would undoubtedly increase quality standards to some degree, it doesn't guarantee purity and compliance.
On certain topics some people seem determined to not use common sense.
For safety, there is more to it than the ingredients:
http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/14771/how-does-...
Very interesting, so perhaps there is at least some theoretical risk!
> Philip Morris’s motives notwithstanding, the legislation has broad support from nearly 1,000 advocacy groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which led the negotiations with the company, as well as the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society.
And today public health organizations like the American Lung Association and American Heart Association are welcoming the FDA rule:
http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/fda-assert...
http://newsroom.heart.org/news/new-rule-gives-fda-tighter-gr...
Phillip Morris' involvement is not a form of corruption, or social proof the rule is secretly bad for everyone. It's the natural consequence of our system of government, which says that persons and companies subject to new laws are allowed to have a say in the process. Google fought SOPA, for example.
The benefit to Phillip Morris is to deny new entrants to the tobacco market. This is also a benefit to public health, plus health advocates hope that the regulations will help shrink the overall market for tobacco products in the U.S.
Edit: throwaway_yy2Di says the bill is bad for public health based on nothing, and is the top comment. 1,000 public health orgs say the bill is good for public health (in the same story!), and this comment is sitting at 0. I guess that's HN for ya...