95% safer than smoking. That’s what Public Health England told us about vaping in a statement endorsed by numerous institutions and charities, from Lung Cancer Research to the NHS. Yet, buffered by misinformation and negative stories, many people think e-cigarettes are as bad or worse than smoking.
To counter misperceptions, and to show that the legitimate vape industry can not only meet but beat the 95% safer mark, Lizi Jenkins of Future Regulatory Service has set up a one-of-a-kind service. For the first time, the Vape Safety project allows manufacturers, retailers and users to get an exact comparison of the risk of individual e-liquid ranges with smoking.
I sat down with Lizi Jenkins to learn more about the project and what it is telling us about e-liquid safety.
Why did you set up the Vape Safety project?
Consumer confidence seems to have decreased over the past couple of years, with perception of vaping skewed by negative media.
In fact, it seems that a new story emerges about our industry daily. They're often misconstrued. The information's not coming from reliable sources. But unfortunately, the public trusts the media over the UK experts that have been researching vaping for years.
The reality is that there's been numerous studies into how effective vaping is compared to using nicotine pouches and gum. We also know from Public Health England’s review that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking. And we thought that with the better flavourings, new innovative technology and the developed testing methods we now have, we can do so much better.
So we created Vape Safety to give retailers and consumers confidence in the products they're purchasing. For the first time they can have a live comparative safety percentage with cigarettes - with facts and data that's been validated and verified.
What makes you the right person to assess e-liquid safety?
I've worked in the industry for numerous years. That included heading up a huge compliance department in one of the UK's largest vape manufacturers which allowed me to review all data sets on laboratory reports, including carbonyl emissions.*
More recently I set up Future Regulatory Services. I can look at a report now and say where the products come from, just by reading the results, seeing how it's been tested and looking at the methodologies.
I've also been really fortunate to work alongside some top-class toxicologists. Together we pulled together a report of what the tolerable levels were for six key compounds (carbonyl analytes) and then worked with a leading governmental laboratory to analyse them. That experience allows me to look at the methodology other people are submitting to Vape Safety and assess its validity.
*Carbonyls are compounds formed during combustion or vapourisation that are harmful to health.
What does the process look like?
We used a government laboratory to give us a set of comparison data. The laboratory tested three of the biggest brands of cigarettes in the UK - we used three because people have different preferences. We take the average result and use it as our core data to compare to e-liquid emissions results.
When the manufacturer inputs their data, we ask them to upload their methodology and any laboratory accreditation. We then compare that to the methodology used with the cigarettes to make sure we can validate it. We don't conduct emissions testing for the manufacturers - they give us the data obtained for TPD registrations, so we can validate that it's going to work for a direct comparison between e-liquid emissions and cigarette smoke.
So you are looking at things like toxins and carbonyls?
Yes, we're looking at carbonyl emissions. But we also look at other harmful substances called tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The latter two are what you typically see in cigarettes. They come from the curing of the tobacco and the harmful compounds in that. That said, we would never expect to see those in vape products because they're not derived from tobacco - there's been no curing or any sort of processing of tobacco to make a vape product.
The only exception I've seen is some manufacturers use tobacco-derived flavourings. So if we do notice that on the portal, we will ask for further information and ask for those results. But your typical vape product won't contain those, so it’s mainly focusing on the carbonyl emissions because they're present in both product sets.
Can you tell me a bit about the results so far?
So far they've been really positive. I did expect them to go this way because the reputable manufacturers on the portal take this really seriously. The results are above and beyond the 95% benchmark the NHS set. In fact, they exceed it by a considerable amount. One example that I pulled off this morning had an average overall safety figure of 99.67%!
What's the average safety level you're getting?
The average is normally between 96.5% and 98%. We haven’t had one submission fall under that 95% benchmark.
We want to use these statistics and demonstrate to the public what vape products are really about, and that as reputable manufacturers we take safety seriously and ensure it's a top priority when making these products.
As we continue to build the database, and as more manufacturers sign up and upload their data, we can build an even greater picture of safety. We've got the ability to have an industry overall safety percentage.
It would be great to see this publicised because people will see the industry is well above where we need to be and where we should be.
Have you had any interest from researchers in the data?
Yes, we’ve had interest from toxicologists and researchers who want to get involved with a peer review.
Manufacturers are contacting me asking for the details and working out how they can fit this into their business. And that was always the goal. I want this to be standard practice for companies. The way we've set it up, it doesn't have to just be products that have been submitted to the MHRA and to the EU government. It can be those that are in development.
That could allow manufacturers to use us as a benchmark. For example, they might say OK, the test result is a little bit higher than what they’d like. Their KPI might be to always have the relative risk level for their product at least 98 per cent, and they might then go back and reformulate it.
The long-term goal is for Vape Safety to be a standard tool for e-liquid manufacturing companies.
How can the knowledge you are gaining be used to eliminate compounds of concerns from e-liquid?
It’s looking at common ground. If we've got 100 similar flavours that do have a slightly increased level of concern, we’ll look for the one ingredient that's in all of them - and then seek an alternative.
However, no results I've seen have been alarming - which is down to using reputable flavour houses who know and eliminate any ingredients that cause increased levels of emissions.
In the past, we've seen warnings advising vapers to avoid certain types of flavours, such as cinnamon. Are there any specific flavours that are more likely to be harmful than others? And if so, does it really matter?
In this day and age, flavour houses, especially in the UK and the EU, are so tuned into safety regulations and banned ingredient lists that we don’t see flavours with banned or concerning chemicals. Vape companies have demanded high-level flavours that aren’t going to cause any safety concerns, and as a result, the flavours that get produced are of a really high quality.
Certain flavourings do have lots of complex compounds and might produce slightly higher levels of some compounds like formaldehyde. However, that's only when compared to the likes of your menthols and tobaccos which can have as few as five compounds.
But even then, the slightly elevated levels of formaldehyde are still well below any health-critical values and any benchmarks, so nothing I've seen gives me cause for concern.
If you were a vaper, would you consider avoiding any specific flavours?
No, not at all. I'd probably more likely go for the strawberry fruit flavours just because that's my preference.
The increase in emissions from flavour to flavour is so slight it wouldn't cause me concern at all. They are so far below any cause for concern it wouldn't bother me at all. And it is really almost zero in terms of the increase. Knowing how hard flavour houses work to ensure their flavours are safe gives me great comfort as well.
I'm pleased to hear about menthol, though, because I'm a menthol user.
Menthols can have as few as four or five compounds in. They're really simple, like tobacco flavours. And that is probably why the emissions are slightly lower.
On the other hand, I've seen some strawberry flavours with around 100 compounds in and that's to build those layers of flavour. You're seeing it more with disposable flavours.
But I've got absolutely no concern about their safety just because they've got more compounds in and they might have a slightly increased emission level. It's nothing that I would be like, “Oh my goodness, this isn't good”. They're still really low and the safety percentages are still coming out well above the 95% benchmark the NHS set.
If you were a vaper, would you be biased towards using UK-produced flavours?
Yes, I would. And don't get me wrong, some of the e-liquids coming from overseas are of a really good quality and the laboratory reports they produce are really good. I would just be more inclined to use UK-manufactured flavours because you've got due diligence, you can go and audit the supply chain, you know their good manufacturing practices, and you can get an idea of how they manufacture these flavours and in what capacity.
Thinking about both e-liquid and hardware and advances in our knowledge there, what potential do you think we have for further improving the safety of vaping?
I think the number one thing is using tools like Vape Safety. We should be able to shout it from the rooftops, you know, this is hard data that we've collated, this is factual and this is what should be in the media rather than the horror stories that you hear all the time.
And every time I see a horror story I just roll my eyes because it's skewed and one-sided and comes from unreliable sources. So I hope having a data-based tool like Vape Safety is really going to help the perception of vaping.
Increased involvement by and funding for the MHRA and Trading Standards is going to help control illegal vapes. I know eBay and Amazon have gone on a bit of a mission to conduct random spot checks and remove any non-compliant products off their websites which is helping clean up the industry, even ahead of the potential disposable ban that we're going to see.
Do you want to add anything on how the safety of vaping has progressed since its origins?
It's progressed massively since the industry began. Think back to the early 2000s when we weren't governed by any regulation, the type of products that were on the shelf. Look back now and you're like, ‘wow!’.
Once TPD came into force in 2016 we really saw the beginning of quality and safety being taken seriously. The cowboys of the industry were completely forced out. They couldn't afford to pay the fees, they weren't bothered about the quality and safety so they just didn't do it.
The regulations that were put into force really drill down on the fact that the manufacturers are responsible. Things like validated laboratory testing and toxicological risk assessments were really vital in ensuring that the products in the market were safe to consume.
And I really love the community that has been formed through the use of trade associations that make people accountable for that quality. We sit and we talk about quality and safety and the issues, and then we've almost created this trend of working together to ensure those that aren't doing it properly are reported and the rules are enforced. So it is helping stamp out the people who aren't taking quality and safety seriously and, in turn, that’s improving the reputation of the vape market.
To what extent do you think the quality of hardware and coils is important?
It's really important that we make sure that our devices are as good as our e-liquids.
Some central advice would be to buy a device from a reputable manufacturer, one that's been properly tested and submitted. A lot of people forget that anything that touches e-liquid still has to be registered. Your coil and your tank have to be registered and submitted just like an e-liquid would be. Checking for things like CE marking and UKCA marking also really helps make sure that they've gone through that process as well.
A lot of devices nowadays are very controlled, you literally click a button and you're inhaling. But you've still got ones where you can adjust the wattage. Manufacturers often publish recommended wattage settings for coils. Follow those recommendations, don't go above those. No one likes a dry burn, so just make sure you're using it properly.
There’s an edge case where the flavour is starting to go, but you can still put up with the vapour. So would you recommend always changing the coil regularly?
Yes, definitely!
What are your thoughts on illegal vapes?
You don't know where they've come from, you don't know where they've been made. If they're not registered, they've not followed the same safety and quality regulations that we have to.
Wrapping up
As we’ve often said on this blog, vaping is not 100% safe - but the question that should be asked is not “Is vaping safe?”, but “How much safer is it than smoking?”
Lizi Jenkins’ project demonstrates the potential vaping has when manufacturers can operate under a sensible regulatory environment. With responsible manufacturers, access to quality ingredients and improvements in toxicology, vaping clearly has the ability to not just match the ‘95% safer than smoking’ mark but to beat it.