Flavors that may contain Diacetyl, are there really this many? - Page 22
Page 22 of 72 FirstFirst ... 1218192021222324252632 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 713
Like Tree1010Likes

Thread: Flavors that may contain Diacetyl, are there really this many?

  1. #211
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Iowa, IA, USA
    Posts
    1,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan Tittle View Post
    Linda from TFA and Tom from Capella's answer e-mails directly. As a matter of fact, they are the only ones that have replied to my e-mails when I contacted either company and it's not because I have a direct link to either of them, nor do I have a huge wholesale account. They are simply the ones who respond and it's been that way since I started dealing with both companies.

    Does that mean all companies have the owner, co-owner, CEO, President, etc answering e-mail? No, but given the nature of the question, I'm sure it's something that has been asked dozens of times before this thread and will be answered probably dozens more by those who don't read this thread or those posted in the future. CSR's or whoever they pay to answer e-mails have most likely already answered it and to get that answer, they had to ask someone. Why? Because given state of affairs and the sue-happy nations, giving false information would technically be grounds for a lawsuit if someone can prove otherwise.

    False information and false advertising are two of the quickest ways to see legal action, especially in the US and e-mails can be used, despite the private communication notices that some companies use in the footers. So with that in mind, they honestly have no reason to lie or give out information that would harm their business. They would be better of simply telling us "I don't know", which would save hassle and all future time.

    Since flavors are specifically designed for the baking and cooking industry, I don't see many companies running GC/MS testing on every single flavor in the too near future because of the costs to do so. FW alone has 200+ flavors, OOO is approaching the same number and as TFA and Capella's grow, they'll add to their line-up.

    TFA and Capella's may be doing GC/MS or other testing to help us out, but they are not obligated to do so. We chose to use their flavors and honestly, it's not our business to tell them "this has to be done, or else." We can always talk with our money, but they were in business before we vaped and they'll be in business after we're done (should vaping ever end). Congrats to them for stepping up, but who are we to say that it is their responsibility to do testing?

    It'd be different if companies were giving exact amounts, such as what was provided by Sarah from FlavorWest, but the other 99% are not. They state it's in there or it's not. As for the amounts listed from the e-mail from Sarah, those are pretty specific amounts to just be pulled out of thin air.



    All that being said, even Tom stated that there are other ways of keeping the flavor without using Diacetyl, Acetoin or Acetyl Proprionyl, which is how they're developing their new Vanilla Custard flavor which doesn't contain any of those chemicals. Perhaps FW uses a similar method in some of their flavors? I don't know, but unless someone else is willing to step up and buy one of every single flavor on the market and put it through testing, the best thing we have is what the vendors are telling us and when they are giving out specific details, it's a bit hard to discredit that.
    We2 n' you, just have differing viewpoints on this issue overall. There's no way we'd ever accept: "the best thing we have is what they're telling us...and it's hard to discredit that". The only possible reason we can think of that a company making thousands of dollars monthly off of vapers, wouldn't/couldn't gladly/willingly post proof of their claims of product safely....would be that they don't have proof to post. It only takes a few hours to scan in test results, upload them and link to them. Or maybe it even takes a few days...but what's that against thousands of dollars monthly and the health of those filling their bank accounts.

    We live in a world where hundreds of companies & corporations (and thousands of individuals) make all manner of false claims. When it comes to matters of health, we find it best to be skeptical and 'ask for evidence' before we believe those claims...especially when it's what we want we want to hear & believe. Yeah, we ruffle a few feathers here & there, but there's no harm done...to anyone except those making false claims.

    We just wanted to know who "Sarah" was, and whether she was qualified to back up such a claim. That's a valid concern.
    Sdh and mamahack like this.

  2. #212
    Registered Supplier ECF Veteran Jonathan Tittle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Johnson City, TN, USA
    Posts
    1,608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by we2rcool View Post
    We2 n' you, just have differing viewpoints on this issue overall. There's no way we'd ever accept: "the best thing we have is what they're telling us...and it's hard to discredit that". The only possible reason we can think of that a company making thousands of dollars monthly off of vapers, wouldn't/couldn't gladly/willingly post proof of their claims of product safely....would be that they don't have proof to post. It only takes a few hours to scan in test results, upload them and link to them. Or maybe it even takes a few days...but what's that against thousands of dollars monthly and the health of those filling their bank accounts.

    We live in a world where hundreds of companies & corporations (and thousands of individuals) make all manner of false claims. When it comes to matters of health, we find it best to be skeptical and 'ask for evidence' before we believe those claims...especially when it's what we want we want to hear & believe. Yeah, we ruffle a few feathers here & there, but there's no harm done...to anyone except those making false claims.

    We just wanted to know who "Sarah" was, and whether she was qualified to back up such a claim. That's a valid concern.
    I agree that we have somewhat opposing views, but at the same time, I'm glad we can agree and/or disagree with each other without resorting to bickering or name calling.


    That said, testing can be quick or slow depending on the tests being done. I'm not saying I wouldn't *like* to see manufacturers step up and provide results, rather, that it's unlikely due to the general use of said flavors. They're giving us the basic information, which is that it is or isn't in there and FW has given us the amounts on the flavors that do. I don't see them investing further without some major pull to do so and that would have to come from more than just DIY'ers; vendors that use their flavors, such as MBV, would need to push and push for results.

    The same for any vendor who exclusively uses TFA, or Capella's, or Inawera etc.

  3. #213
    Super Member ECF Veteran Deeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    624
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    Where I order from there is no Diacetyl, Acetyl Propionyl and Acetoin
    in the liquids. I also don't fear to much about long term effects. My bloodwork is better and I haven't needed my inhalers as of 2 weeks into vaping. I might consider flavourless but for now my focus is to get off nicotine. Just lowered myself to 6mg this whole week!

    Edited: allecigsolutions has it posted at the top of the DIY flavor page that all 3 are not in their juices.
    Last edited by Deeo; 03-12-2014 at 04:36 AM.
    we2rcool and Jonathan Tittle like this.

  4. #214
    PV Master Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    aikanae1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    az
    Posts
    5,354

    Default

    So I assume your vaping unflavored?

    The major flavor trade organizations (don't recall the letters) have on their websites advice to members not to sell flavors to the ecig industry. There are literally tens (hundreds?) of thousands of companies manufacturing flavorings. I don't know where you get figures that vaping even places on the revenue pie chart, but I'd be surprised if it's .001% of the industry as a whole. I don't think we have the leverage to demand much.

    Remember, it was a flavoring company that raised the alarm that the approved diacytal replacements might not be as safe for inhalation as they appeared to be for ingestion - and not due any vaper getting sick. Many of these molecules are considered "natural" as well and there was no reason to suspect them. The flavoring companies didn't need to say anything about their suspicions, but they did. I'm impressed FW released the ppm's. I don't see any reason to not trust them and I'm not loosing sight of the fact that all flavoring companies may not be so forthcoming. I'll have to see.
    Last edited by aikanae1; 03-12-2014 at 05:00 AM.
    ImperfectFuture likes this.
    "Don't blink."

  5. #215
    PV Master Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    aikanae1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    az
    Posts
    5,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deeo View Post
    Edited: allecigsolutions has it posted at the top of the DIY flavor page that all 3 are not in their juices.
    I think one of the points is that it's hard for flavoring manufacturers to know for sure, therefore anyone using those flavors also doesn't know for sure. The statement may be as meaningless as "organic". However, the fact that any of those ingredients does any measurable harm is also speculative at this point as well. All we do know is that vaping is better than smoking, but not better than quitting.
    Last edited by aikanae1; 03-12-2014 at 05:09 AM.
    Deeo likes this.
    "Don't blink."

  6. #216
    PV Master Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    440BB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    The Motor City
    Posts
    4,114

    Default

    When I started DIY a couple years ago, my search for flavors led me to TPA/TFA. I was impressed with their being proactive and forthcoming about components that may have a risk and identifying those flavors that contained them. I continue to use their flavorings most of the time, but this discussion has led me to move to puffing versus inhaling much more often. Simply not inhaling leaves us with a possibility of some irritation, but far less overall risk. I suspect concrete answers to our concerns will be hard to obtain.

    We all adjusted to vaping from smoking, and moving to puffing without inhaling appears to be a logical next step if we want to continue vaping in a healthier way.
    Vaping since April 3, 2011 8:30am


  7. #217
    Full Member Verified Member AlabamaWoody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Huntsville, Al ,USA
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Do ou think it makes a difference wether you "mouth" hit vs. lung hit ?
    I know it's impossible to not get a little in your lungs but if you mouth hit and exhale through your nose getting as little in your lungs as possible has got to be better, what is the general consensus on this .... ???

  8. #218
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Iowa, IA, USA
    Posts
    1,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaWoody View Post
    Do ou think it makes a difference wether you "mouth" hit vs. lung hit ?
    I know it's impossible to not get a little in your lungs but if you mouth hit and exhale through your nose getting as little in your lungs as possible has got to be better, what is the general consensus on this .... ???
    It is our opinion, along with the abstracts of many studies that we have seen...that the bad chemicals affect all "mucosa" equally harshly. Just one example from a study posted earlier in this thread:

    ...necrotizing rhinitis, tracheitis, and bronchitis comparable to diacetyl-induced injury."
    and
    "We conclude that 2,3-pentanedione is a respiratory hazard that can also alter gene expression in the brain."
    Rhinitis is inflammation of the nasal mucosa; necrotize means 'to kill'.

    So in that study, the breathing in of the chemical through the nose adversely affected the nose, trachea & lungs.

    In most of the studies we've reviewed, wherever the chemical in question comes into contact with the tissue, the tissue is ultimately damaged.

    Of course, if one doesn't inhale, it's not likely the lungs could be affected.

    However, sublingual (under the tongue) absorption of chemicals into the bloodstream is typically one of the best ways to ensure a chemical gets into the bloodstream. Chemicals also absorb through the inner mouth tissue. So keeping the vapor in the mouth would probably mean that just as much of the chemicals enter the bloodstream directly as lung inhalation.

    One thing we know for sure is that keeping tobacco 'in the mouth' is a sure fire way to cause mouth/throat cancers.

    It appears that the safest way to vape is to minimize the amount of known/unknown chemicals in the liquid...and be SURE to use only flavors that contain none of the damaging chemicals. This is something that's easy to accomplish!

  9. #219
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aikanae1 View Post
    All we do know is that vaping is better than smoking.
    But how do we 'know' this? Because our bodies tell us that our chest/bloodflow/nerves etc. feel initially better? Is this enough?

    Like, all we know is that butter is better for you than MSG. Great, can I have 10lbs of butter please.

    All we know, surely, is that as a nicotine delivery method, vaping is different from smoking.

    EDIT: I know that cigarettes have dangerous tar included and up to 4,000 potentially harmful chemicals added. I am told vaping removes these threats. I assume this makes it 'better' all round. But it's just an assumption at this stage, I don't know.
    Last edited by acka; 03-12-2014 at 10:05 AM. Reason: .
    we2rcool and mamahack like this.

  10. #220
    ECF Founder Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    SmokeyJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,574
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by we2rcool View Post
    One thing we know for sure is that keeping tobacco 'in the mouth' is a sure fire way to cause mouth/throat cancers.
    I know what you intended by that phrase, but it's important to point out that smokeless tobacco is vastly safer than smoked tobacco for all risks including oral cancers: Smokeless Tobacco Safer Than Smoking, Study Suggests -- ScienceDaily

Bookmarks