Since its release in 2018, the FDA's Real Cost anti-tobacco campaign has targeted vapes and vapors. The commercial, titled "Epidemic," was a reference to chemophobia and showed a classroom full of vape victims with invisible worms crawling beneath their skins.
Since then, the firm has employed expensive advertising executives to assert that vaping "magically" converts vapers into smokes, engage in stigma reminiscent of the Drug War, and work with Marvel Comics to depict vaping as a kind of "mind control."
This year, formaldehyde—the original chemical vape villain—is the star of a (so far) brief series of advertisements that bring back chemophobia.
Formaldehyde: The Very First Research FAD Against Vaping
The first anti-vaping research letter, which included utilizing methodological trickery (or blunders, if you're feeling kind) to manufacture “dangerous levels” of formaldehyde and other carbonyls from open-system vaping setups, was introduced nine years ago in a study letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The reason behind the formaldehyde craze was that having a mod set at very high voltage settings made it simple to make high-carbonyl vapor, which overheats or burns the wick and liquid and produces unvapeable vapor. Taking weak pulls on a sub-ohm tank, which needs fast, high-volume air movement to produce decently chilled vapor, is another technique (or error).
Cardiologist and vape researcher Konstantinos Farsalinos ultimately co-authored (together with chemist Gene Gillman) a systematic evaluation of 32 "formaldehyde studies," outlining the study's shortcomings and producing helpful research recommendations. Farsalinos had recognized the "formaldehyde problem" right away. Farsalinos came to the conclusion that modern vaping atomizers "appeared to emit minimal levels of carbonyls with dubious clinical significance in terms of health risk" and that "carbonyl emissions from e-cigarettes were substantially lower than tobacco cigarette smoke when realistic use conditions were ensured."
The FDA is Fond of Compounds that Sound Threatening.
Vaping devices don't release harmful amounts of formaldehyde when used as intended. When they do, it's because the hot vapor is unpleasant to breathe in and corrosive to users. All of it is known to the FDA. But why should an effective TV ad be compromised by scientific facts
The Real Cost formaldehyde advertisement comes in three different variations, each with suitably horrifying taxidermied creatures observing a teenage vaper who is waiting outside the taxidermy business. They seem unhealthy with their wired-together jaws and decaying teeth, yet the youngster who vapes is the one who needs help the most.
The knowledgeable dead wolf remarks, "Hey, did you know that kid is vaping the same toxic chemical that's used in taxidermy—formaldehyde?" Funny antics follow as the other deceased animals struggle to pronounce the chemical's name.
There's also an advertisement without taxidermy, maybe for younger viewers. In another one, a narrator compares the "beautiful and fragile ecosystem" to human lungs as sewage spills into a pond via an open pipe. He warns against vaping since it might expose you to harmful substances. Do you contaminate yourself?
FDA: Adults are resistant to half-truths on Real Costs
Naturally, the FDA maintains that its anti-vaping propaganda is only directed at children—as if there could be any such thing in the era of the internet. At an online session hosted by the American Vapor Manufacturers Association (AVM) last year, Brian King, the director of the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), informed the attendees that the advertisements had undergone "rigorous evaluation" both before and after their airing.
However, a 2022 research that was published in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research found that the FDA Real Cost advertisements "resulted in overall more negative expectancies about e-cigarettes" for adult smokers who saw them, including a decreased desire to quit smoking and start vaping.
After seeing the adult Real Cost advertisements, viewers altered their thoughts and concluded that the two products were "comparably harmful," even though they had previously thought that e-cigarettes were "significantly less harmful (in general) than combustible cigarettes."
An open marketing effort that outlined the true dangers of vaping for nonsmokers as well as the potentially enormous advantages for smokers would be beneficial to both adults and children. However, FDA officials responsible with teaching the public about tobacco have never felt the need to provide the whole truth about vaping or non-combustible nicotine products, even though they have periodically acknowledged that it is less hazardous than smoking and referred to the "continuum of risk" associated with nicotine products.
