Dimitri Goes Off on Rant About Dishonest Liquid Vendors

Status
Not open for further replies.

Topwater Elvis

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Dec 26, 2012
7,116
16,502
Texas
None of it means beans or meat.
The vaping market doesn't even reflect .1 of one percent of the flavoring industry sales.
There isn't a single flavor / flavoring that a reputable lab or agency would approve or recommend as 'safe' to suspend in aerosol and inhale.
There are no flavors / flavoring considered as GRAS for inhalation, none.
There are no safe level standards for inhalation use of any flavoring or whatever is in flavorings that are considered applicable to e cigs, none.

Until someone changes the minds of the 'expert panel' the FDA has & will listen to
---> Safety Assessment and Regulatory Authority to Use Flavors: Focus on E-Cigarettes | FEMA
Or, forms a consensus within the industry, devises a standard method of testing, defines safe levels of whatever, forms and or funds a controlling authority, have it all peer reviewed, then submit that to the FDA.
We can test & remove all possibly harmful ingredients until we're blue in the face, until the FDA approves food flavorings for inhalation use we're pretty much sol.

Food flavorings are controlled by the FDA, any approved use goes through them.
All the FDA has to do is say 'we don't approve flavorings' then un approved use will be forced into participating in something like the tobacco MSA, 100% funded by the e cig industry.
Catch 22.

IMO, the FDA is rolling on the floor while collecting, copying & filing away vapers own words which will likely come back to bite them.
*Looky here, even people that use e cigs think some components of e liquid could be or are unsafe, they're even doing the research to prove it for us.*

But we just want to know the dangers of an unknown,
*sorry you're on your own to figure it out, anything you discover along the way will be used against you.*

IMO, when an activity is too risky for an individuals comfort level they shouldn't participate, or when it becomes too risky it is time for that individual to stop participating in the activity.
This jumping on the bandwagon with or at least assisting those seeking to pretty much end the industry as we know it or morph into something that fits in a tiny little very expensive regulated box that they control is self destructive.
vaping too dangerous, too many unknowns, too many risks, not enough information provided to make a personal risk assessment decision? walk away just like you would from any other activity you thought was unsafe or beyond your personal risk threshold.


Just me, I'd still vape if we found out it contained just 50% less of everything known in cigarette smoke.
I never once thought of vaping as harmless or safe and knew it came with risks.
Safer alternative to inhaling tobacco smoke, tobacco harm reduction, less harmful than smoking cigarettes, yes.
GRAS, no.

Inhaling anything other than the air we all share comes with risks, period.
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,272
USA midwest
There are preciously few patients diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans.

That may be because, as Dr. F and others, like pulmonologists, have said, the early lung damage may be showing up as, or misdiagnosed as, COPD.


At any rate, we all have different expectations for our health. A lot of ex-smokers, unfortunately, have a somewhat fatalistic attitude (and it has been impressed on them by the ANTZ) that since they were once smokers they are damaged, toxic, and hopeless in some way.

It is sort of depressing to see ex smokers seeing themselves this way, having been brain-washed by ANTZ, and making comments like "I smoked for 20 years.....so what's a little acetyl proprianol or other risky chemical now?"

I don't ascribe to that.

I read a comment somewhere from a fellow vaper that i agree with: "better than smoking" is a pretty low benchmark.

Indeed.

As far as I'm concerned..... and while I agree that vaping is harm reduction, not harmless..... I intend to aim much higher than that. I want more for myself.

And hence, more for the industry and other vapers and the future of vaping.
 
Last edited:

Sirius

Star Puppy
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 19, 2013
18,632
76,259
North Carolina
  • Like
Reactions: zoiDman

Mazinny

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 25, 2013
4,263
22,713
NY
None of it means beans or meat.
The vaping market doesn't even reflect .1 of one percent of the flavoring industry sales.
There isn't a single flavor / flavoring that a reputable lab or agency would approve or recommend as 'safe' to suspend in aerosol and inhale.
There are no flavors / flavoring considered as GRAS for inhalation, none.
There are no safe level standards for inhalation use of any flavoring or whatever is in flavorings that are considered applicable to e cigs, none.

Until someone changes the minds of the 'expert panel' the FDA has & will listen to
---> Safety Assessment and Regulatory Authority to Use Flavors: Focus on E-Cigarettes | FEMA
Or, forms a consensus within the industry, devises a standard method of testing, defines safe levels of whatever, forms and or funds a controlling authority, have it all peer reviewed, then submit that to the FDA.
We can test & remove all possibly harmful ingredients until we're blue in the face, until the FDA approves food flavorings for inhalation use we're pretty much sol.

Food flavorings are controlled by the FDA, any approved use goes through them.
All the FDA has to do is say 'we don't approve flavorings' then un approved use will be forced into participating in something like the tobacco MSA, 100% funded by the e cig industry.
Catch 22.

IMO, the FDA is rolling on the floor while collecting, copying & filing away vapers own words which will likely come back to bite them.
*Looky here, even people that use e cigs think some components of e liquid could be or are unsafe, they're even doing the research to prove it for us.*

But we just want to know the dangers of an unknown,
*sorry you're on your own to figure it out, anything you discover along the way will be used against you.*

IMO, when an activity is too risky for an individuals comfort level they shouldn't participate, or when it becomes too risky it is time for that individual to stop participating in the activity.
This jumping on the bandwagon with or at least assisting those seeking to pretty much end the industry as we know it or morph into something that fits in a tiny little very expensive regulated box that they control is self destructive.
Vaping too dangerous, too many unknowns, too many risks, not enough information provided to make a personal risk assessment decision? walk away just like you would from any other activity you thought was unsafe or beyond your personal risk threshold.


Just me, I'd still vape if we found out it contained just 50% less of everything known in cigarette smoke.
I never once thought of vaping as harmless or safe and knew it came with risks.
Safer alternative to inhaling tobacco smoke, tobacco harm reduction, less harmful than smoking cigarettes, yes.
GRAS, no.

Inhaling anything other than the air we all share comes with risks, period.

You make a lot of valid points. I don't disagree with your facts, but your conclusions i disagree with. You may chose to engage in an activity that is safer than smoking a cigarette without trying to reduce that risk any further, but to assert that those of us who want to reduce the risk further will hurt the industry is unfair and misguided imo.

This is what Dr. Anne Hobbs of NIOSH said to an FDA panel re DA and AP in e-cigarettes :


Do you think what we write in this forum will have more sway than what perhaps the worlds leading researcher on these compounds has to say ?
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,315
1
83,840
So-Cal
I wonder what such a test would cost? I seem to recall that some commercially available flavors have hundreds of components...

Can't Say. Perhaps someone with More Expertise in this Field can Chime in on it.

Sometimes the Cost of doing Multiple Repetitive Tasks Isn't that far from the Cost of Doing 1 Task though.
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,272
USA midwest
they could have been relying on information
from their suppliers. the bottles of flavorings
do not necessarily say diacetyl or acetyl.
:2c:
regards
mike

Dr.F. adressed that when he did those first testings: (on the subject of not knowiing they were using flavorings with high diketone and AP levels:

"They never asked for any proof for that (which means, analytical testing with proper limits of detection). Of course, this is not an excuse, they should have shown a more professional behavior."

Keep in mind, Dr. F.'s entire aim was, and is "for the industry to respond and solve the problem".

These vendors have had well over a year to do that. Right? And we are still not getting honest answers.

I get tired of the people defending the "oh, we didn't know" schtick....it doesn't meet even my lowest ethical standard and I guess I don't understand why it is acceptable to anyone else, either.

Thankfully, there are people at Cloud9 and Vaporshark who also don't find it acceptable, and maybe they got tired of waiting around for these vendors to do something, but for sure, they no longer wanted to "be liable" for distributing the chemical spew that some of are putting into bottles.

Some of you seem borderline suggesting that information be swept under the rug (that this information should be locked down in private exchanges between Cloud9 and Five Pawns, or Vaporshark and the vendors they distribute) have a very different compass than I do.

But bottom line is, some of us want to know these things, and thankfully, a few people are willing to tell us what the heck is going on! we WANT to see the actual values of diketones and AP.

And unfortunately, after over a year, if this still can't be presented, I applaud those shops who are not only protecting themselves from selling other people's questionable products, but looking out for their own first-line customers in the process.
 

Rossum

Eleutheromaniac
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 14, 2013
16,081
105,222
SE PA
IMO, the FDA is rolling on the floor while collecting, copying & filing away vapers own words which will likely come back to bite them. *Looky here, even people that use e cigs think some components of e liquid could be or are unsafe, they're even doing the research to prove it for us.*
I think we should seek facts and truth no matter how they may or may not be used.

IMO, when an activity is too risky for an individuals comfort level they shouldn't participate, or when it becomes too risky it is time for that individual to stop participating in the activity.
This jumping on the bandwagon with or at least assisting those seeking to pretty much end the industry as we know it or morph into something that fits in a tiny little very expensive regulated box that they control is self destructive.
Vaping too dangerous, too many unknowns, too many risks, not enough information provided to make a personal risk assessment decision? walk away just like you would from any other activity you thought was unsafe or beyond your personal risk threshold.
It's not vaping in general that we're talking about here, but rather two very specific chemicals that are used as a flavoring component, chemicals that at least some reputable people believe are harmful to inhale.

Inhaling anything other than the air we all share comes with risks, period.
Sure, but what if there was an order of magnitude difference in the risk between liquids that contain substantial amounts of diketones and those that don't? I don't know that to be true, but let's assume for a moment that it is. Is it then acceptable for a liquid produce to LIE about whether it's present in his liquid or not?
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,272
USA midwest
Personally, I believe in the free market system.

And it seems that, indeed, Five Pawns just met the free market system. :lol:


It wasn't only about the AP, etc. so much as the possible lying ...but the thing that left a bad taste in mouths of many was the strong-arm legal tactics and failure to respond amicably to the first communication they received from Cloud9 back in May. If that had been "handled", we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

5P vastly mis-analyzed the sentiment of consumers with all that, and finally the cease and desist orders. Nobody likes to see Goliath trying to do smack downs.

 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,272
USA midwest
  • Like
Reactions: Pocha

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,973
San Diego
Can I just summarize this for all concerned parties?

We are never going to stop vapers from wanting to know what is in the liquids.
And we are never going to stop them from caring.

We can argue all day long about whether or not the effects of "whatever" are relevant.
But in the end, we're just wasting breath on that.

There are only two ways to solve this...
--Transparency from the vendors
--The FDA

Pick your poison.
 

gin828

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2013
633
1,349
PA, USA
Any testing should be done by non partial testers, labs that have no interest in the e-cigarette market.
Anyone who does do testing for this market has access to all the data and can use that as ammunition, so independent labs are the only truthful options. If any one in the e-cigarette market does testing for a fee, basically people are paying them to do their research for them. In the end they will be able to use the data for any number of reasons or sell to the highest bidder.

As much as i loathe lying to customers.....I dont want to fund smear campaigns
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jman8

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,806
62
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
Any testing should be done by non partial testers, labs that have no interest in the e-cigarette market.
Anyone who does do testing for this market has access to all the data and can use that as ammunition, so independent labs are the only truthful options. If any one in the e-cigarette market does testing for a fee, basically people are paying them to do their research for them. In the end they will be able to use the data for any number of reasons or sell to the highest bidder.

As much as i loathe lying to customers.....I dont want to fund smear campaigns

Companies that lie to their customers DESERVE to be smeared all over the internet!

Andria
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,272
USA midwest
I think we should seek facts and truth no matter how they may or may not be used.

I wish I could "like" this 1,000 times.

Along the way, in dog and racehorse rescue work, there were people who didn't want to "out" the abusers, lest PETA got hold of it. this of course, caused undue and vast suffering for many dogs, and horses, because the abusers were not brought to justice (because doing so would create publicity) and they continued to "repeat" their acts.

It's a very *strange* ethical plane that some live on when their hate for their opponents/detractors outweighs doing the right thing for the sentient beings that need their protection, and which they once said they wanted to help.

I never got it, and I still don't. But I've seen it happen way more than I care to talk about here. :( The "don't ask don't tell" makes me shudder, knowing how much suffering happened to animals because of that kind of thinking.
 

440BB

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 19, 2011
9,222
33,992
The Motor City
Five Pawns had an example of how to respond to the Cloud 9 tests. Nicoticket came forward (the first time, over a year ago) announcing they had found levels of diketones they deemed unacceptable in their liquid and apologized, promising to change their recipe. They turned a potential PR disaster into a feel good story. I'm not a fan of their company, but they played it right to preserve their reputation.

Five Pawns had the chance to do the same ever since their own testing showed significant levels, but chose not to. One possible reason is their extensive presence in the B&M channel, which Nicoticket had not yet developed. I would expect if Five Pawns came out with a similar announcement, most retailers would want a refund or replacement stock, costing Five Pawns a good amount. Instead, they did nothing, held on to their test results and came up with a new additional line of liquids. Continuing to defend their existing recipe and make legal threats while product stays on retail shelves could in theory be more profitable in the short run.

It seems they tried to minimize their financial risk. Let's see how that wager pays off.
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,272
USA midwest
There are only two ways to solve this...
--Transparency from the vendors
--The FDA

Well it is over a year later since Dr. F. said test results are the only way to see the levels.

It's a real "horse race" to see which will happen first between your 2 options.

To me, given the inertia shown by some of the juice makers, I would venture a guess that, if they were worried about the FDA, they wouldn't want to be spending their $ on testing, but on getting as much product out the door in the time they feel they have left.

Millionaires have or will emerge from this biz........as well as the more venture capitalist types like Five Pawns who are entering the market every day---- with a lot of funding up front, and a past history of jumping into market sectors with emerging technologies that appear to offer a nice economic payoff. The guy who started Five Pawns was never a smoker * or a vaper, by the way. They have taken what they know from entering other emerging technology markets and just applied it to the "business of ejuice."

*
"Rodney Jerabek was never a smoker. The Southern California brand designer is the type who’d have a cigar on the golf course. He’s a wine collector, a foodie, a guy who likes a nice single-malt scotch."

"The Right to Vape - The Atlantic
 
Last edited:

BigEgo

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2013
1,048
1,228
Alabama
Any testing should be done by non partial testers, labs that have no interest in the e-cigarette market.
Anyone who does do testing for this market has access to all the data and can use that as ammunition, so independent labs are the only truthful options. If any one in the e-cigarette market does testing for a fee, basically people are paying them to do their research for them. In the end they will be able to use the data for any number of reasons or sell to the highest bidder.

As much as i loathe lying to customers.....I dont want to fund smear campaigns

What lab(s) are you referring to here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread