Innovation about Electronic Cigarette - Literature review Example

Innovation about Electronic Cigarette Innovation about Electronic Cigarette Introduction Known as electronic cigarette, e-cig, e-cigarette or smokeless cigarette, this revolutionary product innovation is basically a vaporiser powered by battery to simulate the smoking of tobacco. It is transforming the entire process of inhaling nicotine through combustion into an electronic heat-and-vaporise procedure. Although they do not contain tobacco or produce smoke like conventional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes use nicotine which is obtained from tobacco plants. First appearing in a 1963 US patent but developed in 2003 in China and later introduced to the US in 2007, electronic cigarettes are basically vaporisers that use heating elements to atomise e-liquids, which are simply liquid solutions. This is part of the journey the tobacco industry has made in a very short period, including considerable design, regulatory and legislative advancements. It is opined by satisfied consumers and manufacturers that the electronic cigarette is a safer alternative to conventional tobacco cigarettes that result in millions of deaths annually. However, health experts also present differing opinions regarding safety and health concerns, arguing that manufacturers are not disclosing either all or the correct ingredients in their products. This essay will present a literature review on the innovation of electronic cigarettes and the impact it has made on modern life. The literature review will further compare the electronic cigarette with the conventional cigarette and justify that the innovation is having a negative impact on modern life. Different types of business innovations aim at accessing their targeted markets in rejuvenated and more appealing ways and, generally, to improve lifestyles. The innovations take as many forms as the products may dictate, with the common ones being product innovation, modular innovation, systems innovation, process innovation, incremental innovation and radical innovation (BSI 2012, p. 214). Modular innovation will commonly involve changes and enhancements in an existing innovation’s single component or more, but the basic product largely remains the same. On the other hand, systems innovations involve greater infrastructural and functional changes. In the case of the electronic cigarette, it does not exactly fit the category of a radical innovation because it was not meant to replace conventional smoking. Rather, since it was presented as a cheaper, safer and healthier alternative, it is a product innovation. Product innovations usually offer a wider range of products from which the consumers can choose. In terms of business, the innovation of the electronic cigarette has been largely successful and is still growing. However, just like most other innovations, there are consequences mainly in health, regulatory and ethical forms. As opined by Caponnetto, Campagna and Russo (2012, p. 54), the innovation of the electronic cigarette made use of modern technology to explore new and potentially successful markets. However, they are also quick to point out that the innovators, developers and proponents were also largely taking advantage of a dire health and safety situation to reach one of the largest global markets. According to Caponnetto, Campagna and Russo (2012, p. 56), the innovators are basically selling the concept of hope to conventional smokers and addicts who do not see another easy way out of their addiction. With health concerns about smoking having been raised from the 1980s but the number of smokers still growing, it became evident that smoking is an industry that needs to be addressed. The number of people addicted to smoking around the world was already high and rather than encourage them to quit their habit, electronic cigarettes came into the picture to offer an alternative. From this perspective, it is agreeable that the innovation is indeed very successful businesswise. According to Chapman and Wu (2014, p. 43), the electronic cigarette is a modern alternative means for the consumption of nicotine, which is the chemical responsible for addiction found in tobacco. Conventional cigarettes were invented as a lifestyle habit but after a while emerged as a serious health threat not only to the smokers but also to those around them. This led governments around the world to start regulating the production and use of tobacco products including the most recent regulations that include banning advertising cigarettes and public smoking. Technically speaking, the innovation of electronic cigarettes is counter effective to the efforts aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating smoking by most governments around the world. The electronic cigarette is a battery-powered innovative product in which liquid nicotine is converted into a vapour or mist that a consumer inhales. The first generation of this product innovation were designed by manufacturers to exactly resemble conventional cigarettes, but they have no tobacco and do not require to be lit by a flame in order to be consumed. After the existence of conventional cigarettes for about five decades, the electronic cigarette was developed by Hon Lik, who was a Chinese inventor and pharmacist. This was after his father was killed by lung cancer following years of heavy smoking. According to Callahan-Lyon (2014, p. 36), Hon initiated the idea of vaporising a jet of pressurised liquid containing diluted liquid that contained nicotine. The vaporising procedure was achieved via an element that emitted piezoelectric ultrasound. Hon’s model was patented in 2003 and by 2004 various designs were being produced in China but based on Hon’s concept. While most take the cylindrical shape of conventional cigarettes, there are other shapes and styles available but generally, they are all intended to simulate actual smoking. The components are standardised and replaceable across brands. Second generation electronic cigarettes are the favorites of more experienced consumers and are overall larger than conventional cigarettes and first generation electronic cigarettes. They use larger batteries that are not removable but have higher capacity charged through USB chargers. Third generation electronic cigarettes are characterised by mechanical mods. According to Caponnetto, Campagna and Russo (2012, p. 69), there are no conclusions as to whether the electronic cigarette, regardless of the generation, offers smokers a healthier and cleaner alternative for conventional cigarettes. In agreement, Chang (2014, p. 55) opines that that can best be understood by first exploring the basic working concept of the product and why its popularity has and continues to grow. When the conventional cigarette is lit, the rolled tobacco is set ablaze and the burning process releases nicotine-containing smoke. To deliver the nicotine produced to the lungs, the consumer will have to breathe in the smoke. On the other hand, an electronic cigarette is composed of three basic parts that include a cartridge, vaporisation chamber and rechargeable lithium battery. Rather than relying on the combustion process, electronic cigarettes convert the liquid nicotine into a vapour, which is then inhaled. The battery, charged in similar fashion to those of mobile phones, connects to the vaporisation chamber which has electronic controls and creates the vapour. According to Bravo and Miller (2014, p.1), the fact that electronic cigarettes do not burn tobacco but heat a liquid could in itself present an inherent health and safety issue. Explaining this opinion, Grana, Benowitz and Glantz (2014, p. 1975) point out that the vapour released by the heating of the liquid contains propylene glycol mist, which is used in the manufacture of anti-freeze, pet-friendly solutions. This is the same mist that is used in smoke machines in the theatres and dances. However, the mist has been shown by studies to expose those who inhale it to the risk of eye irritation and respiratory inflammation. Agreeably, as per the opinion of Bravo and Miller (2014, p.1), this does not make the consumers and those within the vicinity of the vapour any safer as consumers of conventional cigarettes and those exposed to second hand smoke. Other questionable ingredients in electronic cigarettes include the cancer-causing nitrosamine compounds and brain-damaging tetramethylpyrazine. Should the electronic cigarette break, and the possibility can never be eliminated, the users will inevitably find themselves exposed to the compounds. Unlike what the innovators of electronic cigarettes are not telling consumers, professional websites specifically in the UK and US are warning that the product contains ingredients known to be toxic as well as those that may be unsafe. Proponents of electronic cigarettes have presented many arguments in support of the innovation. Drummond and Upson (2014, p. 237) have suggested that those campaigning for electronic cigarettes are capitalising on the known negatives of conventional cigarettes without providing empirical evidence of the positives they associate with electronic cigarettes. For example, the proponents are known to claim that conventional cigarettes have an offending smell. They argue that the offending smell clings to whatever it gets into contact with be it on the human body, household goods and within the car. Combustion experts have pointed out that the reason cigarette smoke has the offensive smell is because of the burning of both tobacco and tar, whose chemical properties make them cling to furniture, hair and clothing. However, according to O’Connor (2013, p. 183), what they are not telling their target market is that the health consequences of inhaling the nicotine vapour from the electronic cigarettes they are campaigning for are also largely unknown. This is mainly research is still ongoing and the scientific results must be waited for before and conclusive remarks are made. Agreeably, the electronic cigarettes may not have the offending and clinging smell produced by conventional cigarettes (Drummond & Upson 2014, p. 237). However, that does not provide empirical evidence that the flavours used in electronic cigarettes such as “bubble gum”, “cotton candy” and “gummy bear” are free of harm. In fact, as Chapman and Wu (2014, p. 47) agree, such flavours are serving the controversial purpose of luring and encouraging minors to indulge in the habit of “smoking” electronic cigarettes. A report released by the Washington-based National Center for Health Research reveals that between July 2010 and March 2014, 2,405 calls were received by poison centres reporting emergencies (Bravo and Miller (2014, p. 14). However, what is more alarming and does not support the cause of electronic cigarettes is the fact that more than half of these calls were reporting children below the age of five having come into contact with electronic cigarettes. This, as explained by the National Center for Health Research, electronic cigarette cartridges contain far more highly concentrated liquid (Chang 2014, p. 74). What this means is that when the liquid is swallowed or absorbed through the skin, there are higher chances or requiring emergency room services than compared to swallowing a conventional cigarette. Further, since electronic cigarettes do not require lighting, it is easier for children to consume them by imitating what they see from adults. Adkison, O’Connor and Bansal-Travers (2013, p. 214), had earlier given suggestions that Grana, Benowitz and Glantz (2014, p. 1982) agreed with, indicating whether inhaled from conventional cigarettes or whatever generation of electronic cigarette, nicotine still remains a highly addictive substance. The only real difference between electronic and conventional cigarettes is that the former do not contain tobacco. However, tobacco (alongside nicotine) is not the only cancer causing agent in cigarettes as nitrosamine compounds have also been shown to exist in the vapour produced by electronic cigarettes. Referring to experiments conducted in 2012 by researchers from the University of Athens, Greece, Bravo and Miller (2014, p. 69) present evidence that electronic cigarettes should be viewed beyond the simple perspective of innovative, recreational alternative to conventional smoking. The results of the experiments were presented at the Annual Congress of the European Respiratory Society in Vienna and showed negative effects of short-term use of electronic cigarettes. The tested population included healthy volunteers who had never smoked in their lives and continuing smokers, some with lung conditions and some without. After inhaling electronic cigarette vapour for 10 minutes, their airway resistance and oxidative stress were measured and found to have increased instantly among all the participants. Also commenting on the findings of the experiment, Callahan-Lyon (2014, p. 48) notes that it is alarming that among the smokers, the airway resistance was increased from the mean average of 176% was raised to 220%. Among the nonsmokers, it was increased to 206%. It was only the asthmatic patients and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that did not record significant changes but, all the same, they spirometry test was able to recognise change. It is worth noting that the experiment only measured results of a 10-minute use of the electronic cigarette. However, since the average consumer to use the electronic cigarette much more times in a day, that directly translates into increased risks. Representatives from different nations and bodies are still consulting and reviewing in the UK guidelines that affect electronic cigarettes. They include the British Medical Association (BMA), European Union (EU), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). This, according to Chang (2014, p. 56), is a clear indication that there is still a regulatory challenge regarding electronic cigarettes. It follows, therefore, that the proponents of the product cannot explicitly advocate for something that even internal governments have not commissioned long-term studies. That is the core reason electronic cigarettes lack crucial information such as disposal methods, health warnings and proper labeling. It is legally and ethically wrong for manufacturers to claim that electronic cigarettes will improve nicotine health and addiction problems yet bodies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) warn that there is no substantive evidence to support such claims. It also raises concerns when such products are marketed as a means of quitting conventional smoking yet no supporting evidence is presented such as that for tested products such as nicotine gum or patch. As stated by a medical expert from London’s Queen Mary University, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine Tobacco Dependence Research Unit, the electronic cigarette is in an ironic situation (Chang 2014, p. 63). The expert stated that the product is not explicitly covered by the BMA’s marketing or ban of products of pharmaceutical nicotine. Since there is lack of oversight and accurate information on electronic cigarettes is limited to almost nonexistent, manufacturers have the freedom to continue producing and releasing to the market more of the product. This means that consumers are able to access the product at much cheaper prices than they would if it was regulated and manufactured by licensed pharmaceutical companies. On the other hand, the manufacturers of electronic cigarettes cannot credibly claim that they are selling equivalent products to the gazetted replacements of nicotine at the current prices they are selling at. According to Caponnetto, Campagna and Russo (2012, p. 72), if these products were classified under similar medical standard with the government-approved replacements of nicotine, they would cost much more. Therefore, electronic cigarettes are merely a commercial interest and a distraction to the much needed regulatory requirements. If the proponents of electronic cigarettes are so confident in their products being proven nicotine replacements, they should present their evidence to the authorities just as happens with other drugs and allow it to be regulated and sold as a medicinal device. An interesting observation was made by the CDC (2013, p. 246) by pointing out that states and cities are also aiming at capitalising on the uncertain state of the product and inconclusive studies. Ideally, if electronic cigarettes are actually proven to be genuine, safe and functional tools of smoking cessation, then they will warrant lower tax rates than those that are imposed on real cigarettes, as Adkison, O’Connor and Bansal-Travers (2013, p. 214) agree. So far, the few studies that have been conducted have not proven the viability of the electronic cigarette as a means to quitting cigarettes (CDC 2013, p. 293). From this perspective, opponents of the innovation simply view it as way of feeding old addictions. Agreeing to this view, Callahan-Lyon (2014, p. 43) points out that 85% of those who chose to switch to electronic cigarettes used them for up to two years before they were made aware of the ingredients of the vapour. Further, this awareness was not provided by the manufacturer of the products. Out of the more the more than 200 brands that are presently available to consumers, although not all have been tested, all that have undergone some form of chemical evaluation were found to contain silicates and metal particles. This only adds to the already mentioned questionable ingredients that consumers were not aware of. The BMA has also expressed concerns about this aspect and opined that the approach towards the regulation of electronic cigarettes should approach the issue in two ways (O’Connor 2013, p. 190). The first approach should conclusively determine the safety level of electronic cigarettes. It should be noted that this approach does not border on whether the product is safe or not, since that would mean eliminating one of the two attributes. Rather, as a way of acknowledging that electronic cigarettes indeed have the two characteristics, the safety level, or lack of it, should be quantified. Secondly, the approach should ensure that electronic cigarettes remain restricted, just as conventional cigarettes, to adults. At the same time, they must be made fully aware of the potential risks they are exposing themselves to consuming the product. The bottom line as can be seen from the contributors of the literature reviewed is that electronic cigarettes have been around and in use for a relatively short time. Throughout the decade they have been undergoing innovations and being developed, the focus has been on growth. On the other hand, cancer and other life threatening conditions related to nicotine are known to take a considerable number of years to develop. In contrast, electronic cigarettes were introduced to the US, so far the largest consumer, just very recently. Contributing to this, O’Connor (2013, p. 187) says the duration the product has been used renders it almost impossible to determine that it does not have hidden risks. In order to come up with concrete information on whether it is safe or not, scientists require that it be in use for a minimum of between 15 to 20 years. However, they also warn that that should not serve as an encouragement for consumers to ignorantly pick up the habit despite the fact that very little can be said about their long-term effects on health. Grana, Benowitz and Glantz (2014, p. 1985) agree to this and believe that although advertising of cigarettes was banned long ago in many jurisdictions, nonsmokers may be deceived by the perceived safety or novelty of electronic cigarettes. Consequently, they will pick up the habit and over time get addicted to nicotine. The population at greater risk of this observation is the vulnerable youth, lured by an assortment of flavours. Further, since electronic cigarettes are also sold online, and supported by positive word-of-mouth by proponents and other consumers, the youth are further exposed to more risks. As access to the internet gets either easier by the day or more compromised and compounded by the failure to confirm the age of internet customers by most companies, the youth can easily get the product. By all measures, this is counteractive to the already wanting regulatory status regarding the product. As Grana, Benowitz and Glantz (2014, p. 1982) have already pointed out, proponents of electronic cigarettes may claim that it offer nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), but the fact remains that they still deliver a dose of the addictive drug to the consumers. This literature review shows that the proponents of electronic cigarettes are taking advantage of the ambiguous situation surrounding the health and safety status of their products. The effects of conventional smoking have been tested and proven for decades, and not a single one is positive. With this fact as their strongest point and riding on the number of smokers despite the awareness of the risks, the proponents have innovated and presented their own alternative. Ideally, the product still entails inhaling nicotine, albeit in the form of vapour rather than smoke, which means consumers are still exposed to an addictive substance. It may be fronted as being cheaper than conventional cigarettes, but Drummond and Upson (2014, p. 237) point out that that does not translate into buying health. The innovators also talk of the safety aspect enhanced by the lack of open flames, but they do not warn consumers of the serious dangers that may result from the breaking of the cartridge that contains highly concentrated liquids. This is especially so in the case of children. The closest the proponents have come to warning consumers is the acceptance by the tobacco giant, Altria Group, that they have no way or authority to claim the product is healthier but can only point out problems with conventional cigarettes (O’Connor 2013, p. 190). This is in agreement with what According to Caponnetto, Campagna and Russo (2012, p. 56) later came to term as selling the concept of hope to addicts. Conclusion In conclusion, electronic cigarettes have been categorised as a product innovation that has greatly impacted on modern life. However, the impact is largely negatively given that it is essentially targeting at reviving, albeit under a different platform, a habit that has been fought for decades due to its devastating health consequences. Like most innovations are meant to improve lifestyles, this product intended to do so but still delivers deadly addictive substances. Basically a battery-powered vaporiser, it has been presented as a clean, safe and healthy alternative to conventional smoking. In terms of business, the electronic cigarette has done extremely well if only going by the sales figures and the number of users especially in the US. However, although the products are tobacco free, they still contain nicotine obtained from tobacco. Using a heater, they vaporise liquid nicotine that the consumer then inhales. However, like most innovation launched into the market, the electronic cigarette has also provided ground for debates between manufacturers, consumers, government, health, environmental agencies and opponents of the innovation. Although its invention dates back several years ago, it has undergone development and was introduced to the US, the world’s largest consumer, around seven years ago. This relatively short period of usage is also a contributory factor towards the ongoing debates regarding the innovation. While the proponents claim electronic cigarettes are viable smoking-cessation tools, health and regulatory authorities argue that no conclusive test results have been presented to support such claims. The time requirement for such tests to be completed and long-term reports commissioned is much more than the product has been in existence and use. It, therefore, becomes an ethical issue for the producers to market their innovation more by emphasising on the already known ill-effects of conventional smoking rather than providing solid evidence of the benefit of their products. This, according to this literature review, is a negative impact. References Adkison, S, O’Connor, R & Bansal-Travers, M 2013, ‘Electronic nicotine delivery systems: international tobacco control four-country survey’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 207-215. Bravo, B & Miller, S 2014, Are e-cigarettes safer than regular cigarettes, National Center for Health Research, Washington. British Standards Institution (BSI) 2012, Business continuity management systems requirements, Author, London. Callahan-Lyon, P 2014, ‘Electronic cigarettes: human health effects’, Tobacco Control, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 36-50. Caponnetto, P, Campagna, D & Russo, C 2012, ‘The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes’, Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 53-74. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2013, ‘Calls to Poison Centers for Exposures to Electronic Cigarettes’, Notes from the Field, vol. 63, no. 13, pp. 292-293. Chang, H 2014, ‘Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes’, Tobacco Control, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 54-78. Chapman, C & Wu, L 2014, ‘E-cigarette prevalence and correlates of use among adolescents versus adults: a review and comparison’, Journal of Psychiatric Research, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 43-54. Drummond, M & Upson, D 2014, ‘Electronic cigarettes: potential harms and benefits’, Annals of the American Thoracic Society, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 236-242. Grana, R, Benowitz, N & Glantz, S 2014, ‘E-cigarettes: a scientific review’, Circulation, vol. 129, no. 19, pp. 1972-1986. O’Connor, R 2013, ‘Non cigarette tobacco products: what have we learned and where are we headed’, Tobacco Control, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 181-190. Read More