¿Es un Mito que los Cigarrillos Electrónicos Reducen el 95 % de los Daños?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32635/2176-9745.RBC.2026v72n2.5526Palabras clave:
Productos de Tabaco/efectos adversos, Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina, Tabaquismo, Industria del TabacoResumen
Este trabajo analiza la afirmación que los cigarrillos electrónicos son 95% menos perjudiciales que los cigarrillos tradicionales. Este valor nace de un trabajo que fue contestado debido a su fundamentación en métodos frágiles y en autores con intereses en conflicto. Estudios científicos recientes muestran que los riesgos para la salud de los usuarios de cigarrillos electrónicos, como enfermedades cardiovasculares y respiratorias, son considerables y, en diversas situaciones, comparables a los del consumo de tabaco convencional. El uso simultáneo de cigarrillo convencional y electrónico eleva aún más los peligros. El uso de cigarrillos electrónicos está vinculado al inicio del tabaquismo, agravamiento de la salud mental y aumento de la vulnerabilidad a la dependencia entre los jóvenes. El artículo argumenta que la narrativa de que los cigarrillos electrónicos son 95% menos dañinos que los cigarrillos convencionales es obsoleta y engañosa, y no debe ser usada como base para políticas públicas. Al contrario, se sugiere una comunicación fundamentada en evidencias, priorizando la protección de los jóvenes y el acompañamiento riguroso de los productos que contienen nicotina.
Descargas
Citas
McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, et al. E-cigarettes: an evidence update a report commissioned by Public Health England. [Internet]. Londres: Public Health England; 2015 [acesso 2025 set 23] p. 113. Disponível em: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457102/Ecigarettes_an_evidence_update_A_report_commissioned_by_Public_Health_England_FINAL.pdf
E-cigarettes: Public Health England’s evidence-based confusion [editorial]. Lancet [Internet]. 2015 ago 26 [acesso 2025 dez 18];386(9996):P829. Disponível em: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)00042-2/fulltext DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00042-2
Nutt DJ, Phillips LD, Balfour D, et al. Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach. Eur Addict Res. 2014;20(5):218-25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000360220 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000360220
McKee M, Capewell S. Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand? BMJ. 2015;351:h4863. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4863 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4863
Greenberg A, Jose RJ. Public Health England prematurely endorses e-cigarettes. BMJ. 2018;360:k1262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1262 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1262
Jongenelis M. No, vapes aren’t 95% less harmful than cigarettes. Here’s how this decade-old myth took off [Internet]. São Paulo: The Conversation Brasil; 2023 abr 27 [acesso 2025 aug 14]. Disponível em: http://theconversation.com/no-vapes-arent-95-less-harmfulthan-cigarettes-heres-how-this-decade-old-myth-tookoff-203039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.64628/AA.kksf37naj
Ruggia L. E-cigarettes 95% less dangerous? Myth, scientific lies, and manipulations. Tabaccologia. 2023;21(3):7-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.53127/tblg2023-A016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53127/tblg-2023-A016
E-cigarettes-is the UK throwing caution to the wind? [editorial]. Lancet. 2018;392(10148):P614. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31935-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31935-4
Hey CV, Schaper ML, Bayen UJ. Relative source credibility affects the continued influence effect: evidence of rationality in the CIE. Cognition. 2025;254:106000. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.106000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.106000
Hassan A, Barber SJ. The effects of repetition frequency on the illusory truth effect. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2021;6(38):1-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235021-00301-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00301-5
Glantz SA, Silva ALO. Comparison of e-cigarette and cigarette use and dual use associations with disease: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Public Health Rep. 2026:00333549251403349. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549251403349 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549251403349
Hamoud J, Hanewinkel R, Andreas S, et al. A systematic review investigating the impact of dual use of e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes on smoking cessation. ERJ Open Res. 2025;11(3):00902-2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00902-2024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00902-2024
Clinical Oncology Society of Australia. E-cigarettes and cancer: a qualitative risk assessment. [Internet]. Sidney: COSA; 2025 [acesso 2025 out 7]. Disponível em: https://www.cosa.org.au/media/j4rjo4m3/cosa_research_report_on_e-cigarettes_and_cancer_final_july_2025.pdf
Conklin DJ. How irritating! Electronic cigarettes not “95% safer” than combustible cigarettes: recent mechanistic insights into endothelial dysfunction. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2022;42(11):1351-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.122.318468 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.122.318468
Golder S, Hartwell G, Barnett LM, et al. Vaping and harm in young people: umbrella review. Tob Control. 2025:tc-2024-05921. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-059219 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-059219
Ji S, Chen L, Zhuang S, et al. Bidirectional association between e-cigarette use and depression: a meta-analysis. Nicotine Tob Res. 2025;27(12):2142-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntaf163 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntaf163
Mongilio JM, Staff J, Seto CH, et al. Risk of adolescent cigarette use in three UK birth cohorts before and after e-cigarettes. Tob Control. 2025;29:tc-2024-059212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-059212 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-059212
Tattan-Birch H, Brown J, Shahab L, et al. Trends in vaping and smoking following the rise of disposable e-cigarettes: a repeat cross-sectional study in England between 2016 and 2023. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024;42:100924. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100924 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100924
Gornall J. Public Health England’s troubled trail. BMJ. 2015:351:h5826. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5826 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5826
Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária [Internet]. Brasília (DF): Ministério da Saúde; 2024. Anvisa atualiza regulação de cigarro eletrônico e mantém proibição. [atualizado 2024 jun 14; acesso 2025 out 25]. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/assuntos/noticias-anvisa/2024/anvisa-atualiza-regulacao-de-cigarro-eletronico-e-mantem-proibicao
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Os direitos morais e intelectuais dos artigos pertencem aos respectivos autores, que concedem à RBC o direito de publicação.
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
