Thirdhand tobacco smoke exposure increases the genetic background-dependent risk of pan-tumor development in Collaborative Cross mice

Nicotine or marijuana vaping exposure during pregnancy and altered immune responses in offspring

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) - which include electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes, or simply e-cigs, and marijuana vaping have become increasingly popular. ENDS devices have been established as one of the tobacco quit methods and promoted to be safer compared to traditional tobacco cigarettes. Emerging evidence demonstrates that e-cigarette and marijuana vape use can be harmful, with potential associations with cancer. Herein, we summarize the level of evidence to date for altered immune response, with a focus on cancer risks in the offspring after maternal use of, or aerosol exposures from, ENDS or marijuana vape during pregnancy. From 27 published articles retrieved from PubMed, we sought to find out identified carcinogens in ENDS aerosols and marijuana vapor, which cross the placental barrier and can increase cancer risk in the offspring. Carcinogens in vaping aerosols include aldehydes, metals, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, tobacco alkaloids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds. Additionally, there was only one passive vaping exposure case study on a human fetus, which noted that glycerol, aluminum, chromium, nickel, copper, zinc, selenium, and lead crossed from the mother to the offspring's cord blood. The carcinogens (metals) in that study were at lower concentrations compared to the mother's biological matrices. Lastly, we observed that in utero exposures to ENDS-associated chemicals can occur in vital organs such as the lungs, kidneys, brain, bladder, and heart. Any resulting DNA damage increases the risk of tumorigenesis. Future epidemiological studies are needed to examine the effects of passive aerosol exposures from existing and emerging electronic nicotine and marijuana products on developing offspring to cancer.

Policy-relevant differences between secondhand and thirdhand smoke: strengthening protections from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke pollutants

Starting in the 1970s, individuals, businesses and the public have increasingly benefited from policies prohibiting smoking indoors, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars in healthcare expenditures. Smokefree policies to protect against secondhand smoke exposure, however, do not fully protect the public from the persistent and toxic chemical residues from tobacco smoke (also known as thirdhand smoke) that linger in indoor environments for years after smoking stops. Nor do these policies address the economic costs that individuals, businesses and the public bear in their attempts to remediate this toxic residue. We discuss policy-relevant differences between secondhand smoke and thirdhand smoke exposure: persistent pollutant reservoirs, pollutant transport, routes of exposure, the time gap between initial cause and effect, and remediation and disposal. We examine four policy considerations to better protect the public from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke pollutants from all sources. We call for (a) redefining smokefree as free of tobacco smoke pollutants from secondhand and thirdhand smoke; (b) eliminating exemptions to comprehensive smoking bans; (c) identifying indoor environments with significant thirdhand smoke reservoirs; and (d) remediating thirdhand smoke. We use the case of California as an example of how secondhand smoke-protective laws may be strengthened to encompass thirdhand smoke protections. The health risks and economic costs of thirdhand smoke require that smokefree policies, environmental protections, real estate and rental disclosure policies, tenant protections, and consumer protection laws be strengthened to ensure that the public is fully protected from and informed about the risks of thirdhand smoke exposure.