The Congressmembers are wrong even on that score. The MSA clearly defines a cigarette as a product that contains tobacco. Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco. Thus, they do not meet the MSA's definition of a cigarette.

Moreover, several former members (and one current member) of the FDA's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee have (or have had) financial conflicts of interest with Big Pharma, and thus are not in a position to offer opinions about national tobacco product regulation in the context of this expert advisory panel.

Would one therefore conclude that taking an exam is just as risky, in terms of respiratory effects, as smoking a cigarette? Apparently, Dr. Glantz would draw such a conclusion. But it is easy to see why this is an inappropriate conclusion. And we would never disseminate messages to the public that smoking is no more hazardous than taking an exam.

Third, the Surgeon General's report comes across as a project of massive hypocrisy, as the report itself complains about how tobacco-funded scientists failed to disclose their conflicts of interest. The report emphasizes that in the 50 years since the release of the report, disclosure of financial conflicts has become the "norm." It bemoans the fact that in the past, tobacco-funded scientists did not disclose their conflicts of interest, which left readers unaware of these important financial relationships.

LAST：Top selling electronic ciarette ego battery, ego ce4, ego ce5 starter kit, |NEXT：2014 latest vaporizer ego ce4 starter kit, ego ce5 starter kit from JSB with Magnetic Connection