Product News, Reviews, and More

Health and Beauty

The Electronic Cigarette – Is It Actually Better For Your Health?

By on Apr 17, 2013 in Health and Beauty

The electronic cigarette, introduced to the US market in 2007, was designed to offer chain smokers an alternative way of smoking tobacco. Though similar in appearance to an actual cigarette, E-cigarettes do not contain tobacco like cigarettes do. To substitute for tobacco, E-cigarettes have a mechanism that heats up liquid nicotine, and turns it into vapor. So instead of inhaling tobacco, smokers are actually inhaling and exhaling vaporized liquid nicotine. Because they don’t contain tobacco, E-cigarettes do not require a proof of age, and according to manufacturers, E-cigarettes can be smoked anywhere. In the United States alone, over 700,000 chain smokers have switched over to E-cigarettes. A few benefits, as claimed by users of the electronic cigarette, are that there is no tar, tobacco, carbon monoxide, or ash when smoking them, you take in the same amount of nicotine as a regular cigarette, they’re cheaper, you don’t “smell” like smoke anymore, different flavors are available, and there is no second hand smoke. With all of these benefits, as opposed to the cost and danger that real cigarettes bring, what smoker wouldn’t want to switch over from an actual cigarette to an E-cigarette? But the real question remains, are these Electronic Cigarettes actually better for your health than a real cigarette? According to doctors, researchers, and countless testimonials, these E-cigarettes are the way to go. Since E-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco and the hundreds of other cancer causing chemicals like cigarettes do, doctors see only positive results from smokers switching over to E-cigarettes. Source: How Stuff Works, ADP Health...

Read More

The Sugar Sweetened Beverage Market

By on Apr 17, 2013 in Health and Beauty

On March 11, the New York Supreme Court struck down Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to ban the sale of large sugary drinks throughout the city. In a city where 58 percent of adults and 40 percent of public school students are overweight or obese, Mayor Bloomberg pushed for the ban as a means to promote healthier living standards across the city. The ban would have applied to beverages larger than 16 ounces, including non-diet sodas, energy drinks, fruit drinks, and sweetened teas (alcoholic beverages, diet sodas, water, unsweetened teas, and fruit/vegetable juices without added sugar would be excluded) sold in restaurants, movie theaters, stadiums, and arenas. Such beverages could still be sold in supermarkets and convenience stores. There’s a strong moral and financial case for the ban. Across the country, over 300,000 people die per year due to obesity-related issues. And in the midst of the rising health care cost debate, studies show that medical costs are almost $1,500 higher for obese people versus normal weight individuals. Bloomberg had hoped that his ban on large sugary drinks would enable New York City residents to make healthier lifestyle choices. Over his tenure as mayor, Bloomberg has famously championed a number of health-related issues that were initially met with resistance, including banning trans fats, posting calorie counts, and banning smoking in bars and restaurants. These models have since been replicated throughout the nation. Opponents of the ban include small business owners who claim that the transition period would be a burden, and that loss of sales would hurt their bottom lines. Other individuals argue that the local government does not have the power to determine what one can and cannot consume, and banning such drinks will not reduce the obesity problem—people who want to purchase large sized sugary drinks will still purchase them at supermarkets. Mayor Bloomberg’s administration plans to appeal the decision, as tweeted the day of the ruling. Sources: US News, Wall Street Journal, International Business...

Read More