Absurdly Flawed Reporting from Vanity Fair

An article published December 16th in Vanity Fair by reporter Vanessa Grigoriadis has to rank as one of the sloppiest and most error-riddled pieces we have ever encountered in a mainstream publication. Nearly every paragraph contains a factual mistake, false assumption, or an obvious omission. Sadly, the piece does serve as a good example of the lazy, rumor- and misinformation-fueled discussion about vaping policy that so often characterizes mainstream journalism on the subject. We would encourage our members and followers to zero in on flaws that they can spot but here are some of the more glaring examples that we compiled right off the bat.

***

“For more than a decade, the FDA has punted the decision about whether e-cigarettes are a public health boon, leaving Americans to decide for themselves if vapes are a godsend with the potential to save the lives of millions of smokers—or the worst newfangled tech product to come along since the Zune (with the unfortunate side effect of potentially killing you).”

This is profoundly mistaken in several ways.  First, the FDA only first declared its authority to regulate vaping products in 2016, with what’s called a “Deeming Rule.” That’s six years ago, not “more than a decade.” What’s more, they didn’t “punt” on any decision.  FDA immediately insisted that vaping manufacturers submit a complex and costly application for FDA approval – or face being wiped out of the market. 

But the worst error is the insinuation that vaping might “potentially kill you.”  Neither in 2016, nor now, nor ever has there been any sound basis to believe that nicotine vaping might be somehow life-threatening.  In the whole of scientific and medical literature there is not a single example of anyone dying from nicotine vaping. 

“The FDA said it would weigh in when it had more information.”

But that is not what FDA said. Instead, FDA asserted explicitly in 2016 that its new regulations would result in more than 99 percent of all vaping companies to “exit the market.” The agency also acknowledged that only the very largest of these companies would be able to afford the approval process in the first place. That hardline stance stifled investment and innovation, put retailers at the edge of a financial cliff, and alarmed consumers, many of whom began migrating back to smoking cigarettes.

“Finally, in October, the agency granted word from on high that one favored e-cigarette was safe.”

This completely misrepresents the way FDA applies its regulation.  The primary test that FDA applies to these market approval applications is whether the benefit of vaping to adults trying to quit smoking outweighs the risk to minors that try those products.  As the head of FDA explained at the time: “"Our proposal reflects a very careful public health balance between closing the on-ramp for kids to become addicted to nicotine through tobacco products, while allowing for the promise of an off-ramp for adult smokers through access to potentially less harmful forms of nicotine delivery."

Even during the timeframe that Grigoriadis examines, FDA approved two new tobacco cigarette products for the market!  By her reasoning, that means FDA concluded those products were “safe.”   

“Few who observed this fight were surprised by this outcome.”

That’s not true either.  As the leading trade association for manufacturers of vaping products, we were very surprised.  After all, the head of FDA’s Tobacco Control office had said that the agency’s arbitrary approval deadlines “creates a genuine risk of migration from potentially less harmful ENDS products back to combustible tobacco products within the population of addicted adult smokers who have completely switched to ENDS. This is a public health outcome that should be avoided if at all possible.”  Yet FDA proceed to do exactly what it had warned against. If you take FDA at its word, that’s pretty surprising! But Grigoriadis never contacted us nor anyone we are aware of in the vaping industry. 

She alludes to the balancing question in passing but then again mangles the actual facts on the ground:

“Is it worth saving the lives of some number of adult smokers by having [vaping products] on the market if the price is nicotine addiction in young people, some number of whom will inevitably move on to combustible cigarettes and hasten their death?”

Grigoriadis writes about “some number” of teens who will vape or smoke but those numbers are carefully compiled and easily found. For example in just the last two years, vaping among teens has dropped by more than 60 percent.  What’s more, the “gateway effect” that she infers has long been discredited. Here’s a seminal, peer-reviewed study on the matter called “Most smokeless tobacco use is not a causal gateway to cigarettes.” Here’s another. 

But even granting Grigoriadis’s framing, here’s another way to put it: How many adults are we willing to kill in order to prevent one teen’s possible dependence on nicotine?   

“But there was one large, potentially humanity-destroying problem: In order to make Juul as appealing to smokers as possible, and by that I mean delivering a nice buzz and head rush, Juul upped the percentage of nicotine in each vape over the potency of e-cigarettes authorized for sale in Europe . . . [O]nly Juul figured out how to make vapes so potent that they would satisfy smokers; earlier rivals had exponentially less powerful blends of nicotine.”

No, Vanity Fair, no one anywhere at any time has ever regarded vaping as a “potentially humanity-destroying problem.”  Even as hyperbole, that claim is horrendously false. Again, there is not a single example in the whole of medical literature of any person dying from nicotine vaping. It is also a demonstrable fact that millions of people have successfully used vaping to quit cigarettes, which are documented to kill some 400,000 Americans annually. 

Also, no, Juul did not “figure out how to make vapes . . . potent.” Vaping devices  were long devised and marketed with varying strengths of nicotine, some lower than Juul’s and some much higher. Also, no, the strength of the nicotine is not the result of “blending” it in any way. Flavors might be blended but the nicotine is a distinct ingredient in and of itself. 

“The Biden administration seems to be thinking about how to move more smokers to vapes.”

Again, completely wrong and at odds with easily observed facts. Biden’s FDA just outlawed 99.99% of vaping products it has ruled on, the U.S. Postal Service just banned mail delivery of vaping products, and Democratic party leadership have been trying to sneak in vaping taxes and flavor bans into bills every chance they get.

“In the rest of the world, many nations may have less incentive to help citizens get off cigarettes, because they gather high taxes for their coffers from the products.”

The ignorance here is staggering. The entire budget for FDA’s Tobacco Control office is funded by tobacco user fees.  Each state receives huge, perpetual payments from tobacco sales as part of the Master Settlement Agreement. In a piece that purports to contrast US policy with other countries, how could Grigoriadis have missed this well-known fact?