A recent study has stirred up considerable discussion by claiming potential carcinogenic risks associated with vaping flavours, but a deeper look reveals fundamental flaws in its methodology. We believe it’s crucial to clarify these points for a more accurate understanding.

The study asserts that pyrolysis, a process involving the decomposition of materials at high heat, occurs during vaping and could lead to the formation of toxic compounds. However, this assumption does not align with the typical usage and operational conditions of e-cigarettes. The conditions modelled in the study do not demonstrate relevance to how e-cigarettes are actually used, which casts doubts on the conclusions drawn about the toxicity.

Toxicity depends not just on the presence of certain compounds but on their concentrations. The study glosses over this fact by focusing on the mere presence of these compounds under artificially induced conditions. This oversight distorts the actual risk profile of e-cigarettes under normal use.

Professor Konstantinos Farsalinos provides insight into the problem with such an approach. He points out that if we applied the same reasoning to any cooked food under the assumption of pyrolysis at high temperatures, we would erroneously conclude that many common foods are carcinogenic. This analogy underscores that the study essentially engages in a theoretical exercise rather than an analysis of real-world vaping.

Professor Roberto Sussman draws a comparison to the automobile industry, noting that suggesting cars are highly dangerous based on their ability to reach speeds of 250 km/h is misleading. Such speeds are not typical for everyday driving, just as the extreme conditions assumed for vaping in the study are far removed from how e-cigarettes are generally used. Just as cars are not routinely driven at race speeds, e-cigarettes do not typically operate in ways that induce pyrolysis.

In conclusion, the study’s approach exaggerates the potential harms of vaping by proposing scenarios that are not representative of normal e-cigarette usage. For non-scientists looking to understand the validity of such studies, it’s important to recognize these exaggerations and focus on data reflecting actual usage conditions.

Check out this post for a more in-depth analysis and straightforward explanation of these issues for non-scientists like myself.