Artifical tobacco flavours


class lingo
category conflation
motivation appeal to spite (again?)
science aversion 🟧🟧

Policy makers likely assume "tobacco" flavoured e-cigarettes to taste exactly like combustible cigarettes. They don't. Or that this ought to be the natural taste companion of nicotine. It isn't. And even that this would make them "appaling" to non-smokers. Not historically, no. - Which are all probable progenitors for the flavour-fallacy.

What's commonly called tobacco flavours, are for the most part quite synthetic compounds. It's just not possible to replicate any burnt/ash aromas with just plant extracts. And even the overcentrated flavour mixes don't provide exact replicas. (Even less plausible for 3.5µl puffs in pod devices). They're mostly just carried by name association and impaired taste buds. Which is why they're prevalent for dual use, not for successful quitters.

  • plant extracts rare
  • largely synthetic
  • muted or barely reminescent relation to combusted cigs / ash
  • raised toxicity from excessive concentration and mixture of components
  • vanilla/cocao/liquorice/sweeteners/cured)
  • Add Health canada ingredient list (that seems fairly complete, though a clearly futile guessing attempt, in no way matches up to the proclaimed toxicity worries)
  • albeit a response from FA would be more useful).
  • Assessment on RY8 (fruity concentrate smell, minty if overdosed, largely mystery taste).
  • → This seems to be the main confusion of policy makers. Based on the assumption that the "tobacco" label implies the presumed "appalling" cigarette taste or something. Or it's really intended as retribution/penalty for former smokers.
  • Should also add a note that e-cig users are perhaps overworried, the relapse effect from ATFs is less probable after polonged vaping. (Much more plausible for recent switchers. But also voluminous RDA/RTA usage.)
  • (push for ATFs in e-cigs might just be regulatory validation creep again.)