Dear Monsanto: We Vapers Need a High Nicotine Content Eggplant

[Alex]

Dear Monsanto: We Vapers Need a High Nicotine Content Eggplant
March 11, 2015

Featured, Business, Humor

Dear Monsanto,



Many of us who have switched from the deadliest habit on earth to a product that is without a reasonable doubt safer are not only at risk of having our new found hazard reducing tool taken from us, but many of us are already being unfairly charged $1000+ per year in additional insurance fees that are being imposed for no reason other than the fact that insurance companies can get away with it. There is no scientific reason whatsoever to think vapers share the substantial health risks that smokers do in any meaningful way as it pertains to healthcare costs, but because the nicotine in our e-liquid is taken from tobacco plants they can legally hinder our access to affordable healthcare. A lack of long-term studies (whatever "long-term" may actually mean in this context) does not in any way mean there is good reason to believe a product is dangerous, and I feel as though Monsanto should understand this fact better than anyone.

The FDA has been granted the authority to regulate any products “made or derived from tobacco,” and the nicotine in our e-cigarettes is currently extracted from tobacco plants. While we don't know what regulations or restrictions the FDA is ultimately going to impose—and how many small businesses they will take down in the process—the hikes in insurance premiums are already happening thanks to tobacco-specific rules in the Affordable Care Act and they are putting an unfair burden on the families of people who have quit smoking with the help of electronic cigarettes. And I think you can help them.

There are many plants and vegetables that contain nicotine, and finding a source for it other than tobacco would remove e-cigarettes from classification as a tobacco product. According to research, eggplants already contain as much as 100ng/g of nicotine, and if anyone has the know-how to bump that concentration up enough to make eggplants an appropriate source of nicotine for use in e-liquid, it's Monsanto. It doesn't have to be an eggplant, of course. Any non-tobacco plant will do.

While the FDA would likely still regulate the final product, it would not be able to regulate it as a tobacco product (removing some unnecessary stigma), and the product would no longer meet the classification as a tobacco product under the Affordable Care Act.

With future risks including a possible mass reversal of the health hazards e-cigarettes have already reduced and the current state being that families are having an unwarranted barrier placed on their access to healthcare, we could really use your help.

Thanks, Monsanto.



Sincerely,



A Concerned Vaper

source: http://blog.thedripclub.com/dear-monsanto-we-vapers-need-a-high-nicotine-content-eggplant

 

[JakesSA]

At 1 gram an eggplant contains 100 nanograms of nicotine equals 0.0001 milligrams of nicotine

A bottle of e-liquid at 12mg/ml contains or 360mg per 30ml.

That's 3.6 tons of eggplant per bottle... unless all those zeros got me mixed up ...

 

[zadiac]

Yup. That 3.6 tons of eggplant can feed a lot of people. I don't think that will work...lol

 

[JakesSA]

From another perspective, tobacco leaves contain 8% nicotine or 80,000,000 ng per gram.

 

[Alex]

The real point of the article was not about using eggplant for nicotine, but to rather highlight the fact that the liquid should not be classed as a tobacco product, simply because it contains an extract of said product.

But to quote this guy

"harold | 26 July 2013 at 7:47 am | Reply
I am still mulling over the legalese.
– If I make a 100% non tobacco based nicotine delivery device it would be considered a tobacco product under “intended use”.
– If I make a 100% non tobacco based, low dosage, carbon monoxide inhaler it could be considered a tobacco product under “intended use”.
– If I make a 100% tobacco nicotine based, FDA approved ‘cessation product’, it is not considered to be a tobacco product.
The “intended use” criterion is replaced by stuff like “products are effective and that their benefits outweigh any known associated risks”.

To me it looks like different strokes for different smokes."

http://antithrlies.com/2013/07/25/e...o-please-stop-wasting-time-arguing-otherwise/

 

[JakesSA]

Understood, nicotine can also be synthesized, already achieved in 1904. It's not economical to do so because its much cheaper to extract from tobacco and besides, up until now, there was no demand.

To play devil's advocate ... consider that the nicotine requirements from vapers may, in future, keep the tobacco farms viably operating and thereby inadvertently help to ensure that cigarettes also remain in cheap and sustainable supply. This results in a shotgun approach by the FDA e.g. "if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem", their apparent long term solution being the complete removal of commercial tobacco farming .. or, perhaps more likely, .. making lots of money for state coffers under the guise of it.

I don't quite get the quote though, I skimmed the articles and nowhere could I find reference to an "intended use" clause that would group non-tobacco based products under the same legislation?

Insofar the insurance companies are concerned they are not obligated by the quoted act to charge more in premiums for e-cigarette users but probably do so because it's the financially safe choice for them to assume that the vaper is much more likely to smoke cigarettes than the non-vaper. The insurance game is based purely on statistical probability and vaping has not been around nearly long enough for accurate statistical analysis, the risk therefore should be on the insured's side. Of course, in the meantime, they stand to make a tidy profit from it as well.
In the longer term this will change because statistical data will, at some point, show that the risk factor is much less than was originally assumed. This happened recently with burial policies in South Africa because the insurers have, only now, officially recognised the statistical impact anti-retroviral drugs have on life expectancy in South Africa. How long have those been around?

 

[Alex]

Understood, nicotine can also be synthesized, already achieved in 1904. It's not economical to do so because its much cheaper to extract from tobacco and besides, up until now, there was no demand.

To play devil's advocate ... consider that the nicotine requirements from vapers may, in future, keep the tobacco farms viably operating and thereby inadvertently help to ensure that cigarettes also remain in cheap and sustainable supply. This results in a shotgun approach by the FDA e.g. "if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem", their apparent long term solution being the complete removal of commercial tobacco farming .. or, perhaps more likely, .. making lots of money for state coffers under the guise of it.

I don't quite get the quote though, I skimmed the articles and nowhere could I find reference to an "intended use" clause that would group non-tobacco based products under the same legislation?

Insofar the insurance companies are concerned they are not obligated by the quoted act to charge more in premiums for e-cigarette users but probably do so because it's the financially safe choice for them to assume that the vaper is much more likely to smoke cigarettes than the non-vaper. The insurance game is based purely on statistical probability and vaping has not been around nearly long enough for accurate statistical analysis, the risk therefore should be on the insured's side. Of course, in the meantime, they stand to make a tidy profit from it as well.
In the longer term this will change because statistical data will, at some point, show that the risk factor is much less than was originally assumed. This happened recently with burial policies in South Africa because the insurers have, only now, officially recognised the statistical impact anti-retroviral drugs have on life expectancy in South Africa. How long have those been around?

Ah, the quote was from the other link.