Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Emerging Tech
  3. Legacy Archives

Digital Trends may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site. Why trust us?

The NY Times is blowing smoke: Toothpaste poisons more people than vaping liquid

Add as a preferred source on Google

Read The New York Times’ new report, “Selling a Poison by the Barrel: Liquid Nicotine for E-Cigarettes,” and you’ll learn some shocking things about “e-liquid,” the oily stuff used to create the vapor in electronic cigarettes. (Or, as the Times describes it: a “dangerous new form of a powerful stimulant” that’s “for sale by the vial, the gallon and even the barrel.”) For example, did you know that e-liquids “are powerful neurotoxins,” or that a “teaspoon of even highly diluted e-liquid can kill a small child”?

Scary stuff, to be sure. Unfortunately, the Times report sends entirely the wrong message. The problem here isn’t inherent in, or unique to e-liquid or e-cigarettes. The problem is – as is so often the case with avoidable accidents – ignorant, irresponsible people. More importantly, the problem isn’t nearly as widespread as the Times report implies.

Recommended Videos

Even if the number of e-liquid poisoning cases jumps to 15 times the 2013 level, toothpaste is still the more prevalent poison.

E-liquid generally contains three to four ingredients: propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin (both of which are non-toxic and found in many foods); flavoring (also non-toxic); and nicotine – even small amounts of which can kill children and adults alike.  

It is the liquid nicotine in e-liquid that, as the Times reports, led to more than 1,300 calls to poison control centers in 2013 – up from 447 in 2012 – with that number expected to double this year, according to the National Poison Data System (NPDS). That figure roughly correlates with the booming e-cigarette industry, which is said to have generated roughly $1.7 billion in sales in 2013, double that of 2012, according to Bloomberg. Of those reported poisonings, some 365 people were sent to the hospital, three times the number hospitalized the year before.

Children are particularly susceptible to nicotine poisoning from e-liquid, the Times speculates, because e-liquid is packaged in “bright colors” and available in “fragrant flavorings like cherry, chocolate and bubble gum.” In other words: E-liquid creators and distributors are doing everything they can to trick kids into drinking poison. 

e-liquid fillingThe rising instances of e-liquid poisoning are absolutely a problem, simply because more poisonings are always worse than fewer, obviously. But what the Times does not report – or buries – tells a different story: E-liquid makes up only a small percentage of the substances that poison people each year.

According to the NPDS’s annual report from 2012 (PDF) – the most recent publicly available report – 193,443 poisoning cases involved household cleaning agents, 54,445 involved alcoholic beverages, 11,848 were caused by pens or other ink, and 20,306 were caused by toothpaste.

In other words, even if the number of e-liquid poisoning cases jumps to 15 times the 2013 level, toothpaste is still the more prevalent poison.

“OK,” you might be saying, “but toothpaste still isn’t as dangerous – liquid nicotine can kill people, even in small doses! Toothpaste can’t.” And that’s true. E-liquid is extremely dangerous if ingested or absorbed through the skin. But, despite the scary headline, not a single person has died from accidental liquid nicotine poisoning. No, not even any children. Only one person has knowingly died from liquid nicotine poisoning – and it was “a suicide by an adult,” reports the Times.

Everyone must keep their e-liquid and other e-cigarette supplies safely stowed away.

On top of that, e-liquid generally does not contain enough nicotine to cause death in anyone – a fact the Times pushes all the way down to the last paragraph, essentially contradicting its “a teaspoon of even highly diluted e-liquid can kill a small child” claim. You can find some mixes that do, but you’ll have to actively track it down, or make it yourself. (Pure liquid nicotine is available online, as well.) The stuff you buy at your local smoke shop or e-cigarette store (online or off) is not the e-liquid with dangerously-high nicotine content. Oh, and nobody but manufacturers are buying this stuff by the barrel. 

Now, I believe the Times report is merely trying to inform people that e-liquid is dangerous. That’s great. Everyone – especially people with young children or pets – must keep their e-liquid and other e-cigarette supplies safely stowed away, just as you should keep cleaning products out of reach, and guns locked away in a safe. Fail to do that, and you are creating an unnecessary risk. If you didn’t realize that e-liquid isn’t safe to drink, now you know. Be responsible.

The reason I’m frustrated by this report is that it is demonizing, one-sided, and confusing. It potentially pushes people who might otherwise quit smoking away from an alternative that I know has helped people drop tobacco. And that could be more dangerous than the thing The New York Times aims to prevent.

(Images © librakv and Gianluca Rasile via Shutterstock)

Andrew Couts
Features Editor for Digital Trends, Andrew Couts covers a wide swath of consumer technology topics, with particular focus on…
Anthropic’s sensitive internal data was exposed, and AI helped make it happen
Even the company behind Claude isn't immune to AI-powered security threats, as researchers discovered some worrying vulnerabilities.
Claude Anthropic Featured

AI companies spend enormous amounts of time convincing us their technology is safe and secure. But what happens when those same companies become targets of increasingly sophisticated AI-powered attacks? Anthropic, the company behind Claude, is now facing that question. According to a Washington Post report, cybersecurity startup Cathedral discovered vulnerabilities that let its researchers access sensitive information in Anthropic's internal systems.

The researchers used AI agents to identify potential entry points in less than 12 hours. Interestingly, they didn't need to crack Claude itself. Instead, they exploited weaknesses in third-party business applications that Anthropic uses for everyday operations. Anthropic's security testing program disclosed the findings, which allows outside researchers to identify and report vulnerabilities.

Read more
A new startup wants to fix the military’s working-dog shortage with cloning and gene editing
Promising pitch, plenty of unanswered questions about the dogs.
a new startup wants to fix the militarys working dog shortage with cloning and gene editing warhound featured image

Military working dogs charge into places the rest of us would flee. So, I understand why anyone would want to breed tougher, healthier dogs for the job.

Warhound, a new startup from Colossal Biosciences co-founder Ben Lamm and Anduril co-founder Palmer Luckey, has stepped out of stealth with $200 million to clone and gene-edit working dogs for American troops, police departments, and emergency services (via TechCrunch).

Read more
AI can describe a picture, but it still struggles to understand blind users
A University of Maryland study finds that Be My AI often buries useful answers in lengthy descriptions, leaving blind users to work harder to get the information they need.
Blind Man using walking stick

AI can describe a picture, identify objects, and answer questions about what a camera sees. But when a blind user needs a quick answer, getting an entire spoken essay about the scene isn't exactly helpful. Researchers at the University of Maryland (UMD) have found that AI-powered visual assistance can leave blind users doing too much work to get the information they actually need.

The study, titled Say It My Way: Exploring Control in Conversational Visual Question Answering with Blind Users, examined how people interact with Be My AI, an AI-powered feature of the Be My Eyes app. The researchers found that users often received lengthy descriptions that didn't adequately address their immediate goals, forcing them to ask follow-up questions or find ways to steer the AI towards a more useful answer.

Read more