The Alleged Link Between Popcorn Lung and Vaping: Debunking the Myth with Science

While hysteria over “popcorn lung” and vaping has reappeared, science maintains a different and consistent story.

A recent alarmist headline—“Teen’s Lung Damage Highlights Hidden Dangers of Flavored Vaping”—has reignited an old, unfounded panic: the claim that vaping causes “popcorn lung.” This attention-grabbing phrase, formally known as bronchiolitis obliterans, has long been misused in anti-vaping rhetoric. Despite the emotionally charged narrative, the facts – rooted in science, not speculation, tell a very different story.

Popcorn lung is a rare and irreversible condition that scars and narrows the smallest airways in the lungs (bronchioles), causing persistent cough, fatigue, wheezing, and shortness of breath. The disease earned its nickname in the early 2000s after a group of microwave popcorn factory workers developed it due to prolonged inhalation of high levels of diacetyl—a buttery flavouring chemical used in food production. The origin of the term is medically accurate in that specific industrial context. However, drawing parallels between popcorn lung and vaping lacks credible scientific backing.

The popcorn lung scare that isn’t real
The recent article circulating widely in the media suggests a U.S. teenager developed popcorn lung after years of secret vaping. However, upon closer inspection, serious doubts arise about the legitimacy of the claim.

Tobacco harm reduction expert Dr. Brad Rodu cautioned that the diagnosis reportedly came not from medical professionals but from the teen’s mother. No official statement or medical report has been shared, casting significant doubt on the case’s authenticity. “Based only on media reports, it’s very difficult to provide a professional opinion about any tragic illness. However, there are some questionable features of this case. The diagnosis of popcorn lung (the medical term is bronchiolitis obliterans) came from the child’s mother, with no citation to or quote from the child’s health care team,” he told Vaping Post.

“The diagnosis of popcorn lung (the medical term is bronchiolitis obliterans) came from the child’s mother, with no citation to or quote from the child’s health care team.”Dr. Brad Rodu, Professor of Medicine, University of Louisville. Senior Sientist, James Graham Brown Cancer Center

Rodu reiterated that even cigarette smoke—which contains much higher levels of diacetyl than e-cigarettes—has not been linked to popcorn lung. In fact, there has never been a confirmed case of popcorn lung among smokers or vapers, despite decades of use and millions of users. “Furthermore, although cigarette smoke contains diacetyl, the cause of popcorn lung, even long-term smoking is not associated with the disease.  Finally, no case of popcorn lung has previously been reported in vapers.”

Fear isn’t science
The initial panic linking vaping to popcorn lung stems from early studies in 2014 and 2015, which found diacetyl in some e-liquid products. These findings were understandably concerning at the time, prompting a swift and industry-wide response. Since then, responsible manufacturers have removed diacetyl from their products, and more recent research shows little to no presence of the chemical in vaping products post-2018.

Moreover, the presence of diacetyl doesn’t equate to actual health harm at the levels previously detected in vapes. A typical vape cartridge contained about nine micrograms of diacetyl, while a single combustible cigarette contains approximately 336 micrograms—nearly 40 times more. If this chemical caused popcorn lung in such small doses, heavy smokers would have suffered widespread outbreaks of the disease. Yet no such correlation exists.

Public health bodies, including Health Canada, New Zealand’s Ministry of Health, and the UK Health Security Agency, have each stated that there is no evidence linking vaping to popcorn lung. These are not fringe opinions but conclusions drawn from national health organizations based on large-scale data.

Why does the myth persist?
Media sensationalism plays a major role in perpetuating this myth. Stories of young people allegedly falling gravely ill due to vaping draw attention, fuel fear, and generate clicks. Sadly, emotional headlines often distort reality and overshadow the broader public health picture. Linking vaping to popcorn lung is a powerful scare tactic—but one that misleads and confuses, instead of educating.

Public health expert Dr. Michael Siegel has previously emphasized that after more than a decade of vaping use in the U.S. and millions of users, there has never been a confirmed case of popcorn lung caused by vaping. From 2007 to 2018, the recorded incidence rate was zero per 100,000 vapers. That statistic is clear and decisive.

How a false narrative is hijacking the vaping debate
Of course, no one is arguing that vaping is entirely risk-free—especially for young, non-smoking individuals who should not be using nicotine at all. But equating vaping with life-altering illnesses based on anecdotal or unverified stories undermines legitimate harm-reduction efforts.

The true public health benefit of vaping lies in its role as a safer alternative to smoking. Unlike cigarettes, vaping eliminates combustion, the primary process responsible for releasing thousands of harmful and carcinogenic substances found in tobacco smoke. Studies consistently show that smokers who switch to vaping report improved lung function, reduced coughing, and better overall respiratory health.

This is why public health agencies in the UK actively encourage smokers to switch to vaping as a way to quit. The narrative isn’t that vaping is healthy—it’s that it’s significantly less harmful than smoking. This is a critical distinction lost in fear-based reporting.

Clickbait and consequences
If history has taught us anything, it’s that moral panics rarely lead to sound policy. We need regulation, oversight, and honest public education—not fearmongering. The vaping industry should be held to strict safety standards, including banning known harmful additives, mandating transparent ingredient labeling, and discouraging underage use.
But that effort must be based on science, not hysteria. Spreading unfounded fears about in existant links, such as popcorn lung, only muddies the conversation and distracts from real, evidence-based health messaging.

The claim that vaping causes popcorn lung has been thoroughly examined and found inaccurate. Despite early concerns, diacetyl is no longer commonly used in e-liquids, and even when it was, levels were drastically lower than in combustible cigarettes. There is no clinical evidence to support the claim that vaping has ever caused a single case of popcorn lung.

It’s time we distinguish between real risks and manufactured ones. Headlines may stir public emotion, but facts must guide public health. Fear should not replace science—especially when lives and policy are on the line.