One-sided study, false conclusions: Why ELFBAR The LMU/BfR publication was critically examined.
Facts against distortion
On May 31, 2025, the LMU University Hospital Munich and the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) published a joint study suggesting that disposable vapes such as the
We at
Because reality is more complex – and above all, fact-based. The aforementioned study is neither representative nor methodologically sound enough to support such far-reaching conclusions. On the contrary: its results primarily demonstrate one thing – that modern vaping products such as
The LMU/BfR study: Small, narrowly focused and with limited explanatory power
What was investigated? 18 (!) occasional smokers between the ages of 19 and 28 used a vape product (including...) for five minutes each.
What conclusions can be drawn from this? Not much.
- Mini sample: 18 test subjects are not enough to make even remotely representative statements about millions of consumers².
- No statement regarding dependency: The study provides no data on the actual development of nicotine addiction – but only on blood values after a single use⁷.
- Incomplete data: Important parameters such as the amount of nicotine absorbed over time (AUC), inhalation patterns, aerosol composition, or individual consumption habits are not taken into account.
- Incomplete product comparison and methodological weaknesses: When comparing the
ELFBAR Different nicotine concentrations were used with the tested pod system (myblu, 18 mg/ml) in 600 (20 mg/ml) – one fundamental methodological error. Such an inconsistent reference point does not allow for reliable statements about the efficiency of nicotine delivery.
Even more serious: Other crucial factors such as the performance differences of the devices, the vaporization efficiency of modern mesh coils, and the users' vaping behavior were not taken into account.
In other words, whether a product is refillable or disposable has no bearing on the efficiency of nicotine delivery – and this, in turn, is not synonymous with addictive potential. If the focus of this research is indeed on the potential for addiction, it should be considered that lower nicotine delivery in tobacco products often leads to users puffing more frequently and intensely – which can be a clear sign of addiction.
Short: This study is a laboratory test with limited significance – nothing more, but also nothing less.
The true findings of the study – and what follows from them
What the study actually shows: The
Because:
We at
Those who derive a higher value from this Addictive potential deriving from this, it ignores fundamental connections in addiction research.One efficient nicotine delivery is not automatically synonymous with a higher addiction generation. On the contrary: Low efficiency often leads to overcompensating consumption – more trains, longer sessions, higher risk³.
Vaping in international comparison: What comparable evidence-based studies prove
While the LMU/BfR study is based on five minutes and 18 participants, large, independent surveys speak a clear language:
- Public Health Englandhas been observing for years: Vaping is round 95% less harmful than tobacco smoking.
- Cancer Research UK highlights: E-cigarettes contain significantly fewer pollutants and help with quitting smoking⁵.
- A systematic review of Cochrane Collaboration with thousands of participants shows: Vaping products are more effective than nicotine replacement therapies for quitting smoking³.
ELFBAR S's position: For responsible, fact-based vaping
We at
- Our devices are deliberately designed to be controlled, efficient nicotine delivery to enable – to take away the cravings of ex-smokers without to overdose.
- Our communication This is intended exclusively for adult smokers. We support clear age limits, Access restrictions and advertising regulations.
- Our data Information on ingredients, nicotine content, and emissions is publicly available. Transparency is not an optional extra – it's standard⁶.
We advocate for an objective debate and clearly oppose distorted representations that distract from evidence-based solutions.
Conclusion: Debate is welcome – but it should be fact-based and conducted responsibly.
The LMU/BfR study can stimulate discussion about the essential characteristics of effective smoking cessation aids – however, it does not justify alarmist statements about an alleged “addictive potential from disposable vapes.” The actual research speaks for itself: e-cigarettes like the
Always make sure you buy original products, so that How to identify counterfeit vapes and their health risks.
Public institutions have a special responsibility to promote a nuanced and evidence-based perspective on harm reduction. We therefore welcome any scientifically sound discussion about effective means of smoking cessation – as long as it is based on facts, argues in a nuanced manner, and approaches the protection of adult smokers with genuine responsibility.
Source overview
¹ LMU University Hospital & BfR (2025). Disposable e-cigarettes are bringing young adults
Nicotine addiction develops faster than previously thought. Press release
² Weinhold, L. et al. (2025). Single-use electronic cigarettes deliver nicotine as
efficient as cigarettes and are potentially addictive. Scientific Reports.DOI:10.1038/s41598-025-97491-5
³ Hartmann-Boyce, J. et al. (2022). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 11.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub7
⁴ Public Health England (2015). E-cigarettes: an evidence update. gov.uk
⁵ Cancer Research UK. Is vaping harmful? cancerresearchuk.org
⁶ Website
In addition to the technical aspects, find your favorite in the Fruit Dessert vs. Pure Fruit Vaping Type Comparison.
⁷ Hartmann-Boyce, J. et al. (2022). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 11.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub7