Thanks for writing the article @SmokeyJoe, a good read. Just yesterday I was researching this topic and am glad to have found a well rounded summary of the topic and issues.
Confused about Diacetyl? You should be - read now
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
"The fact is we simply do not know at this stage what the dynamics are."
That sounds familiar. So does this:
"Firstly, that in over 7 years of popular usage of e-cigarettes no-one has suffered Broncholitis Obliterans, and secondly that smoked tobacco typically contains more diacetyl than those e-liquids in which it is found.
"However, this line of reasoning falls down....." followed by some 'likely's' that really doesn't knock out that line of reasoning - just throws in more doubts and fears.
"On the one side you have those who wish to create products that are highly appealing to consumers, and aren’t concerned about making them as safe as possible. On the other you have those that maintain that vaping should always be as safe as possible and who take great effort to ensure risk factors are not present in their products."
How do you know this? Did you do interviews of vendors where some said "they aren't concerned about making them as safe as possible"? On the other hand - what 'effort' did others take to "ensure risk factors are not present"? Did they show you lab reports? ..or other data. Or just say that they did? Can you name the vendors that 'don't care' and also name those who do? If not, then on what basis do you make these categorical generalizations?
While this is a fairly well written 'opinion' piece there is little certainty to back up some of the statements. Why? Because as you say "we simply don't know at this stage". These same questions I ask here, should be asked of the vendors or anyone else making claims about ecigs.
Consumers who are concerned should (rather than panic - as you seem to be saying they are - when we've seen little of that here really. "Concern" perhaps but not "panic") ... they should do what they need to do to handle that concern - if it is a big concern - then whatever it takes or don't vape or vape only unflavored eliquids.
For vendors - if they say something is ...x...(insert some chemical) - free, then they should be able to prove that - without that proof, no one should believe them. If they don't say one way or another - then people concerned should not buy from them. If it is a big enough issue - then they'll go out of business - which would be a good thing, since they would be out of touch with the demand by the consumer.
That sounds familiar. So does this:
"Firstly, that in over 7 years of popular usage of e-cigarettes no-one has suffered Broncholitis Obliterans, and secondly that smoked tobacco typically contains more diacetyl than those e-liquids in which it is found.
"However, this line of reasoning falls down....." followed by some 'likely's' that really doesn't knock out that line of reasoning - just throws in more doubts and fears.
"On the one side you have those who wish to create products that are highly appealing to consumers, and aren’t concerned about making them as safe as possible. On the other you have those that maintain that vaping should always be as safe as possible and who take great effort to ensure risk factors are not present in their products."
How do you know this? Did you do interviews of vendors where some said "they aren't concerned about making them as safe as possible"? On the other hand - what 'effort' did others take to "ensure risk factors are not present"? Did they show you lab reports? ..or other data. Or just say that they did? Can you name the vendors that 'don't care' and also name those who do? If not, then on what basis do you make these categorical generalizations?
While this is a fairly well written 'opinion' piece there is little certainty to back up some of the statements. Why? Because as you say "we simply don't know at this stage". These same questions I ask here, should be asked of the vendors or anyone else making claims about ecigs.
Consumers who are concerned should (rather than panic - as you seem to be saying they are - when we've seen little of that here really. "Concern" perhaps but not "panic") ... they should do what they need to do to handle that concern - if it is a big concern - then whatever it takes or don't vape or vape only unflavored eliquids.
For vendors - if they say something is ...x...(insert some chemical) - free, then they should be able to prove that - without that proof, no one should believe them. If they don't say one way or another - then people concerned should not buy from them. If it is a big enough issue - then they'll go out of business - which would be a good thing, since they would be out of touch with the demand by the consumer.
Woot great article
0% tolerance ejuice disclosures must be..
It naturally occurs so disclosures may change across time
but if Njoy can do it and a few others so can all the ejuice vendors..
It takes a sizable investment and sorry to say
unorganized Ma and Pa vendors may need to take a step back;
If lawsuits happen ten years from now whoa they will be crushed..
0% tolerance ejuice disclosures must be..
It naturally occurs so disclosures may change across time
but if Njoy can do it and a few others so can all the ejuice vendors..
It takes a sizable investment and sorry to say
unorganized Ma and Pa vendors may need to take a step back;
If lawsuits happen ten years from now whoa they will be crushed..
I do know, personally, manufacturers who have done everything in their power to make their liquids as safe as possible, and I know that along that journey it's involved working with 3rd party laboratories on testing protocols, putting in place systems of process, building proper clean-room production facilities (in some cases ISO), culling and reformulating compromised flavors, testing all incoming flavorings and much more besides. This is what it takes - it's not easy, and it puts companies at a commercial disadvantage versus those who are content to make liquids based on the MS/DS sheets from flavor suppliers.
If someone isn't doing this, they haven't even started to think about how to exclude problematic compounds.
Now, I don't accuse these people of malfeasance. Mostly it's ignorance, and the fact that the diacetyl issue is poorly understood. But some must simply being ignoring it - it's just not plausible that all manufacturers are ignorant of the issue, and Dr. Farsalinos' research showed wide inclusion of diacetyl in e-liquids.
Accordingly, I think it's fair to say those manufacturers aren't "aren't concerned about making liquids safe as possible". That's not to say that they don't care - I certainly don't think manufacturers want to harm their customers. But the commercials of excluding DA/AP from e-liquid simply aren't there. Consumers aren't demanding it, and competitors are not doing it.
I think, instead, people are probably using confirmation bias along the lines of: Well, vaping's been around for a long time and no-one's suffered from Bronchiolitis Obliterans so it must be OK - plus we're stopping people from smoking. But as I mentioned in the article, BO may be more commonly present in smokers than generally believed.
In terms of naming vendors - no I won't do that. I've purposely not made my article about individual manufacturers, but rather the general factors which contribute to the overall confusion.
That said, I am going to ask a manufacturer to explain what they've had to do to establish processes by which they're happy their liquids are as safe as possible, given the current body of knowledge. Should be published next week some time.
I want to be as safe as possible but to suggest that each juice maker should have each and every one of their juices tested and published is ridiculous. This would lead to the $70.00, 15ml bottle of juice made by the only people that could set up such an extensive testing regime, Big Tobacco.
No, what we need is the Flavor Companies to be honest about what they are selling to our juice vendors. The testing should be done at the top, by the flavor manufactures themselves. They are the ones who are truly making the flavor, not the juice vendor. They are the ones that know what is going in to it. They are also the only ones that can remove and replace it. Very, very few have so far and from what I have heard and tasted, they don't work as well.
No, what we need is the Flavor Companies to be honest about what they are selling to our juice vendors. The testing should be done at the top, by the flavor manufactures themselves. They are the ones who are truly making the flavor, not the juice vendor. They are the ones that know what is going in to it. They are also the only ones that can remove and replace it. Very, very few have so far and from what I have heard and tasted, they don't work as well.
Capt, some flavor companies get around disclosures by proprietary recipes.
Another issue is, it develops naturally as the ejuice is steeped.
FP juice has been in house steeped a long time and that is why D/AP are so high..
The one thing we do know is that it can be D/AP free regardless if steeped.
Takes a lot of cash to get to that level of ejuice creation and know your there lol..
Another issue is, it develops naturally as the ejuice is steeped.
FP juice has been in house steeped a long time and that is why D/AP are so high..
The one thing we do know is that it can be D/AP free regardless if steeped.
Takes a lot of cash to get to that level of ejuice creation and know your there lol..
@SmokeyJoe
Those measures like ISOs and the like are what I would place under the category you established ~consumers aren't demanding it~ so there is no reason to have it. I'd much rather them solve them the issue of not having harmful synthetic compounds I. My juice before I worry about having CDC controlled environments for the E Juice the company may be producing.
But of course it seems many of these juice companies don't extract any of their own flavors themselves to create something truly unique. Instead we have the whole OEM route of just order some flavorings from who knows where (until the public demands disclosure from who it's being purchased). And just mix till something makes your taste buds sing a bit. We have these sort of companies now turning around and telling us what we should consider safe, trying to impose an opinion that leaders in the scientific field are still trying to comprehend. It's nothing short of an insult to everyone who might have been exposed to such an ignorance ridden message.
This way of doing 'business' is an unfortunate state of reality we find ourselves in when we have everything driven by money. Our values are even based on acquiring as much of it as possible by seemingly any means. I heard in the days of ancient China that villagers would have thier village doctor - proceed to pay him well for as long as they remained healthy. It was only when they became sick, did they discontinue all payments to the doctor.
Goodness forbid we had one company that was interested in juice making that didn't seek solely the advice of folks aside from financial advisors. This issue can be taken to roots of human condition. I cannot understand why some people need a sort of validation that anything pertaining to having these chemicals in our juice is excusable. But it seems as long as the market can bare it, it should be allowed to play its course until that eventful moment when you now - not have a concern, but a serious emergency within our vaping population. We will then begin to understand why the Chinese paid their doctors in times of health. The only thing with our case, the public will not be receiving any payback, in the equivalent of the damage done unto them.
Pardon me for not caring about anything less than the complete removal and ban of these kind of substances outright. Abuse will always occur in more times than not - if the potential For abuse exists. I am not comfortable speaking kindly for people in line for profits when they exhibit clear conflicts of interest, while on the other hand - the folks with nothing to gain are demonized or to be labeled as frauds(impossible by definition of someone who doesn't have in most cases a monetary or political etc; gain - in the long term, or short).
@Visus
Does it develop in unflavored liquid?
Those measures like ISOs and the like are what I would place under the category you established ~consumers aren't demanding it~ so there is no reason to have it. I'd much rather them solve them the issue of not having harmful synthetic compounds I. My juice before I worry about having CDC controlled environments for the E Juice the company may be producing.
But of course it seems many of these juice companies don't extract any of their own flavors themselves to create something truly unique. Instead we have the whole OEM route of just order some flavorings from who knows where (until the public demands disclosure from who it's being purchased). And just mix till something makes your taste buds sing a bit. We have these sort of companies now turning around and telling us what we should consider safe, trying to impose an opinion that leaders in the scientific field are still trying to comprehend. It's nothing short of an insult to everyone who might have been exposed to such an ignorance ridden message.
This way of doing 'business' is an unfortunate state of reality we find ourselves in when we have everything driven by money. Our values are even based on acquiring as much of it as possible by seemingly any means. I heard in the days of ancient China that villagers would have thier village doctor - proceed to pay him well for as long as they remained healthy. It was only when they became sick, did they discontinue all payments to the doctor.
Goodness forbid we had one company that was interested in juice making that didn't seek solely the advice of folks aside from financial advisors. This issue can be taken to roots of human condition. I cannot understand why some people need a sort of validation that anything pertaining to having these chemicals in our juice is excusable. But it seems as long as the market can bare it, it should be allowed to play its course until that eventful moment when you now - not have a concern, but a serious emergency within our vaping population. We will then begin to understand why the Chinese paid their doctors in times of health. The only thing with our case, the public will not be receiving any payback, in the equivalent of the damage done unto them.
Pardon me for not caring about anything less than the complete removal and ban of these kind of substances outright. Abuse will always occur in more times than not - if the potential For abuse exists. I am not comfortable speaking kindly for people in line for profits when they exhibit clear conflicts of interest, while on the other hand - the folks with nothing to gain are demonized or to be labeled as frauds(impossible by definition of someone who doesn't have in most cases a monetary or political etc; gain - in the long term, or short).
@Visus
Does it develop in unflavored liquid?
Last edited:
@SmokeyJoe .. About the best blog I have ever read on the subject of,...The Vaping Zombie !!
I loved that line,..may I use it please?!?
I loved that line,..may I use it please?!?
TKS -- Suppliers worth their salt seek advice and take action..I'll point out a recent one here on ECF:
Well Juice Junkies..Troop emailed me and wanted to share the test results to ECF and our beloved thread..NOW THAT's DISCLOSURE !!
I want to thank you @TroopX for doing this brotha..You will never know just how important this issure has become to many of us..Yes,..some will continue to vape as they always have,.and that's fine,..but more than a few of us here have decided to just let the suppliers conduct their business on their terms and just kick back and collect the cash.
But for some,..we will remain cautious and not vape flavors that contain AP/DA.
The Plume Room totally rocks,..and by disclosing these lab test results says to me that TPR can be trusted.
Thanks Again TPR!
~Sirius
TPR Statement.pdf - Google Drive
Troop says as soon as he gets the other lab test results and they get their juices tweeked that he will send those test results to us also..Hell you can't ask for anyone to be anymore complying with fans.
Best gourmet ejuice vendors #2 - The journey continues! | Page 452 | E-Cigarette Forum
Here's an interesting review that is more technical. Some highlights:
"There are a number of differences between bronchiolitis obliterans and other more common obstructive lung diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). For example, in asthma, the degree of airway obstruction expressed by the FEV1/FVC ratio is not long lasting and alters from day to day. Furthermore, FEV1 values return to normal when treating asthma with short-term bronchiole dilators. Moreover, COPD nearly always results in decreased diffusion capacity of the lungs for carbon dioxide (CO2) together with excessive reactivity of respiratory tract. These described symptoms are not characteristic features of bronchiolitis obliterans. This condition can be distinguished from fibrotic changes of the lung, such as those in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or asbestosis by means of impairment of air flow but not FVC value. Notwithstanding, during the early disease stage, the TLC value is raised however, when fibrotic lung changes occur, this indicator becomes lowered."
Diacetyl exposure as a pneumotoxic factor: a review. - PubMed - NCBI
"There are a number of differences between bronchiolitis obliterans and other more common obstructive lung diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). For example, in asthma, the degree of airway obstruction expressed by the FEV1/FVC ratio is not long lasting and alters from day to day. Furthermore, FEV1 values return to normal when treating asthma with short-term bronchiole dilators. Moreover, COPD nearly always results in decreased diffusion capacity of the lungs for carbon dioxide (CO2) together with excessive reactivity of respiratory tract. These described symptoms are not characteristic features of bronchiolitis obliterans. This condition can be distinguished from fibrotic changes of the lung, such as those in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or asbestosis by means of impairment of air flow but not FVC value. Notwithstanding, during the early disease stage, the TLC value is raised however, when fibrotic lung changes occur, this indicator becomes lowered."
Diacetyl exposure as a pneumotoxic factor: a review. - PubMed - NCBI
From the article: "Quite simply, there is not a one-size fits all approach that is appropriate to shoehorn e-liquids into. The laboratory must know what they are looking for, and they must set the correct “limits of detection” in their equipment."
The reason why I'm going to er on the side of caution and avoid eliquids that contain it
The reason why I'm going to er on the side of caution and avoid eliquids that contain it
The major concern, not panic, that many of us have had when talking about this for several years now is that we just want honesty from the vendors about what is, and what is not, in the ejuice we are purchasing.
If you don't know, just say that.
Unfortunately, some have assured vapers that there is no DA/AP in their eliquids.......and yet there was and is.
Basically, without all the other soundbytes and confusion, this is the issue and what all of the bru-ha-ha has been about lately. It was never about bans, regulation, etc. It was never about taking away any vaper's choice about what to vape. It wasn't even about the endless arguments about whether DA/AP is okay or not okay.
It was about transparency and honesty when you DO know or learn about something.....and to honestly communicate that to your paying customers. Once you have that information it is ethically responsible to let the customer know when they ask.
Last edited:
But unfortunately (I believe) the point you quoted is that you might see a liquid that says it doesn't contain it -- and they may even show you the "proof" in test results -- but the LOD of that test might give you a misleading reading if not set or capable of being low enough. I say this to say that to "err on he side of cation" can be a little more tricky than it seems if buying premade flavored eliquid. That is not to say don't trust tests or your gut. I know I would never buy a liquid that is sold with "butter" flavor and any test results at this point for me are a good thing -- just maybe not the end-all-be-all.
Last edited:
Thank you for sharing! Just one simple question: I only vape DIY liquid, no sweet flavours, just tobacco and nuts; am I in a "safe" zone?
Cheers, Swami.
Last edited:
Hard to say (even though you weren't asking me). It really depends on what nut flavoring and what tobaccos, but as a general rule of thumb you are likely (more than not) in the "safe" zone.
The flavor companies are already shown to be unreliable. There may be exceptions, but as a rule they are not the ones we are going to get good information from. With the history of this subject it would be a fools errand to depend on them.
Testing is not outrageously expensive. In the USA I have been hearing that it is something in the neighborhood of $120 per test. Testing does not mean $70 for a small bottle. It may be a burden on a small Mom and Pap corner vape store, but at this point in the game the Mom and Pap store probably should not be mixing their own liquid.
Edit, it appears there is a vape store called mom and pap... should have known..... Misspelled it to get rid of the link.
I find a problem with those two statements. 'aren't concerned' is very closed to 'don't care'. If it's as you say earlier, "Mostly, it's ignorance..." then I would think that "Manufacturers don't know" is more appropriate than "manufacturers aren't concerned about .... safety".
"Wide" in the samples studied, yes. But going back to Dr. F's studies and his comments afterwards, (some 'walkback') I believe the sample from manufacturers was not that wide and the sample of flavors were also mainly 'sweet' flavors having to do with custard/bakery and some fruit flavors combined with them - the actual taste aspects of the diketones which would of course make sense. So taking those parameters, only, which is how I read Dr. F's findings, then one could say there was a 'wide inclusion'.
Again, it comes down to my last two paragraphs above. Basically it's about "Consumers who are concerned" about this issue - what they need to do and then the manufacturers response to that concern and the manufacturers own response when and if they become aware of and then decide upon what they should do. If the demand is great, then they'll either survive or fail, according to how they respond.
Informing consumers about certain issues then discussing them, is what we do rather well here, thanks to you for creating the space with which to do that! - getting as many viewpoints possible is a certain path to more informed decisions. It's the essence of freedom of speech - a concept developed so well by your Trenchard and Gordon in their Cato's Letters, and a huge part of why we Americans celebrate this day.
Yes, just as some consumers were assured, some vendors were also assured. That will change (or not) as the demand from consumers change (or not).
Again: I like where you're coming from on this, and a balanced approach is needed. So I'd like to help you tune up your position by making a further point:
Strictly speaking, this IS NOT "confirmation bias." These are facts, which deserve fair consideration and cannot be dismissed.
On the other hand, taken by itself, this statement is indeed "confirmation bias." It is presented without supporting evidence, other than a reference in your article to a statement by Dr. Farsalinos...who himself presents no supporting evidence for the statement. It is nothing more than an idea, used to support another belief by dismissing the facts...just as you did in this quote.
I'm not trying to be insulting here. Striking a balanced posture is very difficult. I'll urge you again to give more than passing treatment to the work of Dr. Polosa, who presents actual evidence that vaping improves the lung health of even healthy smokers. It's OK to mention that BO is easy to misdiagnose, but one must be careful not to make too many assumptions about this when confronting the facts.
Strictly speaking, this IS NOT "confirmation bias." These are facts, which deserve fair consideration and cannot be dismissed.
On the other hand, taken by itself, this statement is indeed "confirmation bias." It is presented without supporting evidence, other than a reference in your article to a statement by Dr. Farsalinos...who himself presents no supporting evidence for the statement. It is nothing more than an idea, used to support another belief by dismissing the facts...just as you did in this quote.
I'm not trying to be insulting here. Striking a balanced posture is very difficult. I'll urge you again to give more than passing treatment to the work of Dr. Polosa, who presents actual evidence that vaping improves the lung health of even healthy smokers. It's OK to mention that BO is easy to misdiagnose, but one must be careful not to make too many assumptions about this when confronting the facts.
You mean it gets stronger right? It can't develope on it's own unless it's in there. Right? That is my understanding.
So we don't demand that the Flavor Companies (Of which there are a relative handful) actually be open and honest about what they are selling to Juice companies, instead we demand that each and every juice maker (Many Thousands) openly disclose their ingredients and have to have each and every flavor (50 to 100 per maker) independently tested? And this isn't a fools errand.?
To your first part, testing IS expensive and the consumer will certainly be the ones who would pay for it. To the second part, you sound like a shill for big tobacco. Only some big conglomerate should be mixing Juice because that would be safest way? You mean like they did for Cigarettes? That really kept tobacco free of harmful additives. If it weren't for "Mom and Pop" micro-breweries, Americans would still think that Budweiser is beer. You would throw these mom and pop shops under the bus because heck, it doesn't effect you. Well my mom and pop shop has been good to me and I personally don't want to see my juice made by R.J. Reynolds.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
