Guest blog: Lynne Dawkins puts the Commission straight

A guest post from Lynne Dawkins, one of the UK’s foremost experts in e-cigarettes and related technologies: many will remember […]

LynneDawkins-275x257A guest post from Lynne Dawkins, one of the UK’s foremost experts in e-cigarettes and related technologies: many will remember her excellent introductory presentation at the November E-cigarettes Summit. She has just become the second scientist to dispute the European Commission’s use of their research in a letter (below). Dr Farsalinos wrote to the Commission last week say ing that it had misrepresented his science. Now Lynne Dawkins has done the same. 

Here’s the guest post from Lynne, explaining her concern… 

_______________________GUEST POST ___________________________

The European Commission’s latest Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) suggests, among other things,  a limit on the size of refill containers and cartridges.  In their justification document, I am referenced as stating that ‘disposable e-cigarettes and e-cigarettes with sealed cartridges limit the risk that users come into contact with nicotine liquid’.   This succeeds a statement that ‘liquid can be contaminated, expose users to toxic nicotine liquid and are a safety risk for children’.  I did not use the word ‘risk’ in this context and believe that  my words have been distorted and taken out of context.  Below is my letter to the Commissioners and Members of the European Parliament:

Please Do Not Distort My Words To Justify Your Policy

I am the other scientist named by the Commission in its defence of their proposed restrictions on e-cigarettes in the current version of the TPD.

As with the research of Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos, SANCO officials have distorted my words and taken my statement out of context. Let me make it very clear – my research does not provide any justification for proposals to reduce the size of e-cigarette tanks and refill containers.

Common sense would suggest that this would increase the risk of liquid spills as well as choking hazards for children as users would have to increase the number of cartridges or refills used each day.

There is a large volume of science available for any officials and MEPs who want to read it. For instance Burstyn, January 2014  on the safety of e-cigarette vaper; West, December 2013 on limits to NRT efficacy and the Oklahoma study, October 2013 on the gateway issue.  Other studies show nicotine is much less toxic than the Commission’s limits assume.

It is for regulators and MEPs to decide whether or not to listen to scientists or to business interests.  But it is not for them to claim that there is scientific support for their current proposals.   Policy affecting the health of Europe’s smokers is so important that it needs to be built on robust science not fabrications.

  1. European Commission. Factsheet on Tobacco Products Directive – E-cigarettes 2013
  2. Burstyn, January 2014  Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks BMC Public Health 2014, 14:18
  3. West R,  Want to stop smoking? See a specialist. Addiction, December 2013  
  4. Wagener TL, Presentation to the American Association for Cancer Research, National Harbor October 2013 reported in Forbes and Health Day.
  5. Solarino B et al, February 2010,  Death due to ingestion of nicotine-containing solution: case report and review of the literature. Forensic Sci Int. 2010 Feb 25;195(1-3):e19-22.

With kind regards,

Lynne Dawkins

Dr Lynne E. Dawkins Senior Lecturer in Psychology,
School of Psychology,
University of East London, Stratford Campus, Romford Road, Stratford, London, E15 4LZ, UK.

Download Post as PDF

18 thoughts on “Guest blog: Lynne Dawkins puts the Commission straight”

  1. If they can falsify and misrepresent the opinions of experts in their field, then what hope do we, the end-users of this revolutionary product have?

  2. Pingback: Guest blog: Lynne Dawkins puts the Commission s...

  3. Pingback: Lynne Dawkins Tells the EU Commission: You Got ...

  4. Very good response Lynne. It must be so infuriating to have your research misquoted – but deliberately is unforgivable and totally offensive in the way they have twisted words to suite their own aims! Bring on the EU Commissioner….. Heads really must roll for this TPD

  5. tracey styler

    excellent retort Lynne, so they should be corrected for all us vapers [ecig users] but especially for all you experts in your fields, to be totally misquoted is criminal.
    well done

  6. Alan Fletcher

    Somebody we all know very well recently drank approx. 3ml of 45 mg/ml nicotine juice, as a demonstration of the toxicity of e-liquids. He experienced no adverse effects whatsoever. Nil carborundum illegitimi Lynne.

  7. Well responded Lynne, it is totally dishonest when someone takes your report and tries to change the facts whilst still trying to put the report forward to support their case. This is an example that even these politicians are lying to each other as well as to the public who pay their salaries.

  8. Well done to both Lynne and Dr Farsolinos – hope I spelled that correctly! – for correcting these attempts to misquote your research in such an important matter.

  9. Pingback: Latest on EU Ecig Politics

  10. Pingback: ECITA Stand Firm – Proportional Regulation; No Ban; No TPD Inclusion | Electronic Cigarette Blog by VIP

  11. Thank you Lynne for your posting and especially for the hard and honest work you have been engaged in for the benefit of people like me. I am a single dad with 2 teenage children living with me while I also cope with advanced Emphyzema. I consider myself a very lucky person who finally opened my mind to the possibility that one of these ingenious devices; personal vaporizer,electronic cigarette or whatever others what to call them, just may help me do something I could not accomplish after smoking for 40 years. I also consider myself a good guinea pig as such since I can tell anyone the effects it has on my already labored breathing. My lungs are full of holes to put it bluntly. Because of this fact I was given 3-6 months by my lung specialist who at the time also informed me I have a spot growing on one of my damaged lungs.
    To try and keep this message short I will just let you all know I finally started using my vaporizer in September 2013 and have not had a cigarette since. I pay close attention to how it affects me when I need to use it and I can tell you in all honest I have slight difficulty at times when I use certain flavored juices and when I use anything above 70-30 ratio of propylene glycol. In my condition it is noticable if I use for more than 10 minutes at a time. Otherwise I have no issues that bother me. A person with healthy lungs still most likely would not even notice. I also wish to inform you all that Dr Farsalinos has spoken to me on a couple of occasions and has helped me with a couple of experiments I have done on my own personal level. He served to provide me with his professional advice with my experimental use of vaporizing natural oils I am taking for cancer.
    I respect and admire the dedication put forward by all the health care individuals such as yourself and Dr Farsalinos and thought I shold also inform you that the Eelctronic Company NJoy has revealed on the 21st of Jan at a meeting with Health Care Canada, that they have been holding talks with Health Care Canada and are intending to apply for a medicinal use licensing for their product line. This comes as a shock because I have been following a great deal of bloggers and professionals while still researching on cancer.
    To sum up my posting here I simply wish to share any knowledge I have learned on this journey in hopes it also will help others to listen to their hearts and loved ones because there is hope. There’s always hope. I’m still alive as proof. Thanks for providing an avenue for my thought to be expressed. Take care and God Bless.

  12. Pingback: Take A One Minute EU ECig Survey For 3 Chances to Win 4 Great Prizes

  13. Pingback: Totally Wicked legal challenge to the Tobacco Products Directive e-cigarette measures « The counterfactual

  14. Pingback: Wetenschappelijke fouten in het ontwerp van de nieuwe tabaksrichtlijn | Acvoda

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top