1. Home
  2. Health and Lifestyle
  3. E-cigarettes popularity forces firms to review policies

E-cigarettes popularity forces firms to review policies

[email protected] (Agencies)
November 11, 2013

ecigar

When John Castellano feels like a smoke, he simply heads to the break room at Kraft Foods’s factory in Garland, Texas.

The technician has been able to indulge his habit in common areas at work since he started using electronic cigarettes, which emit vapor rather than smoke.

E-cigarettes are “very liberating,” said Castellano, 39, who used to join the other cigarette addicts at the factory’s designated smoking area.

Twenty-five years after companies began banning smoking in the workplace, the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes is forcing them to review their policies.

Many corporations still ban “vaping” as they wait to see if the FDA will regulate e-cigarettes as strictly as regular smokes. Yet Kraft and Walgreen allow local managers to set the rules. Smaller firms, especially creative agencies and Web startups, have already adopted a more laissez-faire attitude.

US e-cigarettes sales will triple this year to $1.5 billion, according to Euromonitor International. They’re expected to accelerate as traditional tobacco makers muscle into a market previously dominated by small players.

Both Altria Group and Reynolds American, the biggest US tobacco sellers, are expanding distribution of e-cigarettes. Lorillard controls about half of the USmarket with blu eCigs, which it acquired last year.

So far, small companies where bosses can monitor whether e-cigarettes bother co-workers are more likely to allow vaping.

“It is all new to us,” said Ged King, president of the Sales Factory, a 35-employee marketing firm based here. He looked up in surprise during a staff meeting a few months ago to see an employee vaping. Now several employees do it, presumably “to help them kick the smoking habit,” he said.

“We’ve not put a policy in place because nobody has complained,” King said.

The technology gives users seeking anonymity an edge. E-cigarettes heat liquid nicotine into an inhaled vapor, dissipating faster than cigarette smoke. So workers more worried about being seen than smelled puff e-cigarettes in empty offices and bathrooms, according to posts on the E-Cigarette Forum website, where visitors share favorite flavors and vaping lounges, plus tips on how to avoid offending co-workers.

“I’m doing it on the down-low and just close the door,” said Dennis Rumpf, a construction manager in Charlotte, N.C. He declined to identify his employer because it didn’t authorize him to speak publicly.

Rumpf, 37, said he alternates between menthol and classic tobacco flavors in the e-cigarettes he’s been using for six months, after 19 years as a smoker.

“I have people come into my office all the time and I’m sure they’d say something if they noticed anything,” he said.

Web developer Adam Gray has won his boss’s approval to use e-cigarettes at his Minnetonka, Minnesota, office.

“It makes him more productive and sets him on a path for better health,” said Paul Hanson, chief operating officer of TrackIF LLC, a firm that monitors price changes across the Web.

Gray, 27, can “vape all day, a puff here and there” without leaving his desk, he said.

Kraft doesn’t have a companywide e-cigarettes policy and allows managers to make their own rules as long as they abide by local and state laws. Walgreen, the largest US drugstore retailer, also leaves decisions to office managers.

However, health and regulatory uncertainties have prompted many employers to treat e-cigarettes like regular cigarettes, said Paula Andersen, a registered nurse at Buck Consultants, a human- resources firm that advises companies on health programs.

“We recommend that if companies do have a tobacco-free policy that they call electronic cigarettes out as well,” said Andersen, who declined to identify clients.

Exxon Mobil and General Motors allow vaping in designated smoking areas, while CVS Caremark and Lowe’s ban e-cigarettes and regular smokes. Levi Strauss & Co. forces vapers to go outside.

“For the most part, people who vape are treated as smokers,” said LeeAnn Blohm, who favors chocolate peanut butter and butterscotch e-cigarettes. She declined to identify her employer in Austin, Texas, which doesn’t allow vaping inside.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 25,2020

Washington D.C., Jan 25: A new study conducted by a team of researchers reveals why individuals who have a history of early life adversity (ELA) are disproportionately prone to opioid addiction.

The study conducted examined how early adversities interact with factors such as increased access to opioids to directly influence brain development and function, causing a higher potential for opioid addiction.

The study was lead by UCI researchers and was published in Molecular Psychiatry.

Tallie Z. Baram, MD, PhD, the Danette Shepard Chair in Neurological Sciences at the UCI School of Medicine and one of the senior researchers for the study, was on the take that the widely known factor genetics that plays major role in addiction vulnerability, cannot be solely held responsible for the recent rise in opioid abuse.

To further clarify, the researchers simulated ELA in rats by limiting bedding and nesting materials during a short, postnatal period of time.

In female rats, this led to striking opioid addiction-like characteristics including an increased relapse- behaviour, for example.

As observed in addicted humans, the rats were willing to work very hard (pay a very high price) to obtain the drug.

Baram said: "Ultimately, we found that conditions during sensitive developmental periods can lead to vulnerability to the addictive effects of opioid drugs, especially in females, which is consistent with the prevalence of ELA in heroin-addicted women."

These findings can be used to highlight the importance given to sex differences in future ELA-related studies on opioid addiction, and in future prevention or intervention strategies being developed to address the growing opioid crisis.

The study conducted examined how early adversities interact with factors such as increased access to opioids to directly influence brain development and function, causing a higher potential for opioid addiction.

The study was lead by UCI researchers and was published in Molecular Psychiatry.

The study found that unpredictable, fragmented early life environments may lead to abnormal maturation of certain brain circuits, which profoundly impacts brain function and persists into adolescence and adulthood.

Tallie Z. Baram, MD, PhD, the Danette Shepard Chair in Neurological Sciences at the UCI School of Medicine and one of the senior researchers for the study, was on the take that the widely known factor genetics that plays major role in addiction vulnerability, cannot be solely held responsible for the recent rise in opioid abuse.

To further clarify, the researchers implanted ELA in rats by limiting bedding and nesting materials during a short, postnatal period of time.

In female rats, this led to striking opioid addiction-like characteristics including an increased relapse- behaviour, for example.

As observed in addicted humans, the rats were willing to work very hard (pay a very high price) to obtain the drug.

Baram said: "Ultimately, we found that conditions during sensitive developmental periods can lead to vulnerability to the addictive effects of opioid drugs, especially in females, which is consistent with the prevalence of ELA in heroin-addicted women."

These findings can be used to highlight the importance given to sex differences in future ELA-related studies on opioid addiction, and in future prevention or intervention strategies being developed to address the growing opioid crisis.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 7,2020

The World Health Organization (WHO) is reviewing a report that suggested its advice on the novel coronavirus needs updating after some scientists told the New York Times there was evidence the virus could be spread by tiny particles in the air.

The WHO says the Covid-19 disease spreads primarily through small droplets, which are expelled from the nose and mouth when an infected person breaths them out in coughs, sneezes, speech or laughter and quickly sink to the ground.

In an open letter to the Geneva-based agency, 239 scientists in 32 countries outlined the evidence they say shows that smaller exhaled particles can infect people who inhale them, the newspaper said on Saturday.

Because those smaller particles can linger in the air longer, the scientists - who plan to publish their findings in a scientific journal this week - are urging WHO to update its guidance, the Times said.

"We are aware of the article and are reviewing its contents with our technical experts," WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic said in an email reply on Monday to a Reuters request for comment.

The extent to which the coronavirus can be spread by the so-called airborne or aerosol route - as opposed to by larger droplets in coughs and sneezes - remains disputed.

Any change in the WHO's assessment of the risk of transmission could affect its current advice on keeping one-metre physical distancing. Governments, which also rely on the agency for guidance policy, may also have to adjust public health measures aimed at curbing the spread of the virus.

"Especially in the last couple of months, we have been stating several times that we consider airborne transmission as possible but certainly not supported by solid or even clear evidence," Benedetta Allegranzi, the WHO's technical lead for infection prevention and control, was quoted as saying in the New York Times.

WHO guidance to health workers, dated June 29, says that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and on surfaces.

But airborne transmission via smaller particles is possible in some circumstances, such as when performing intubation and aerosol-generating procedures, it says.

Medical workers performing such procedures should wear heavy-duty N95 respiratory masks and other protective equipment in an adequately ventilated room, the WHO says.

Officials at South Korea's Centers for Disease Control said on Monday they were continuing to discuss various issues about Covid-19, including the possible airborne transmission. They said more investigations and evidence were needed.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
April 4,2020

Washington D.C., Apr 4: While consuming a high-diet salt can result in high blood pressure, a recent study has revealed a link between salt-rich diet and weaker immune system.

The study was conducted under the leadership of the University Hospital Bonn, and the results were published in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

The research was conducted on mice that were fed a high-salt diet. Later, they were found to suffer from much more severe bacterial infections.

Human volunteers who consumed an additional six grams of salt per day also showed pronounced immune deficiencies.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended a maximum amount of five grams of salt a day.

It corresponds approximately to one level teaspoon. In reality, however, many Germans exceed this limit considerably. 

Figures from the Robert Koch Institute suggest that on average men consume ten, and women more than eight grams a day.

This means that we reach for the salt shaker much more than is good for us. After all, sodium chloride, which is its chemical name, raises blood pressure and thereby increases the risk of heart attack or stroke.

"We have now been able to prove for the first time that excessive salt intake also significantly weakens an important arm of the immune system," said Prof. Dr. Christian Kurts from the Institute of Experimental Immunology at the University of Bonn.

This finding is unexpected, as some studies point in the opposite direction. For example, infections with certain skin parasites in laboratory animals heal significantly faster if these consume a high-salt diet.

The study also sheds light on the fact that the skin serves as a salt reservoir.

"Our results show that this generalization is not accurate," emphasized Katarzyna Jobin, lead author of the study.

The body keeps the salt concentration in the blood and in the various organs largely constant. Otherwise important biological processes would be impaired. The only major exception is the skin which functions as a salt reservoir of the body. This is why the additional intake of sodium chloride works so well for some skin diseases.

However, other parts of the body are not exposed to the additional salt consumed with food. Instead, it is filtered out by the kidneys and excreted in the urine.

"We examined volunteers who consumed six grams of salt in addition to their daily intake," said Prof. Kurts. This is roughly the amount contained in two fast-food meals, i.e. two burgers and two portions of French fries.

After one week, from the results, it showed that the immune cells coped much worse with bacteria after the test subjects had started to eat a high-salt diet.

In human volunteers, excessive salt intake also resulted in increased glucocorticoid levels.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.