Dimitri Goes Off on Rant About Dishonest Liquid Vendors

Status
Not open for further replies.

nebulis

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 1, 2014
702
2,337
Vienna, Europe
Are flavors necessary for vaping? well, that depends on what you mean. For the physical act, no, but for many users the flavors are what tip the scales and make vaping something that you are willing to transition to.
.
Yes, I agree, they are necessary to get hooked and for the transition. But most people do not even know that after desperately seeking and not really finding their "allday liquid" they could give unflavored (- or minimally flavored) liquid a chance, because it is vapeable.

Yesterday I read somebody's goodbye from vaping because he could not find a liquid he likes. Do we know this other side of the coin - how many people stop vaping just because of equating liquid with aggressive flavoring?

OK this is a bit off topic - on the other hand, maybe at least a small part of being a "dishonest liquid vendor".
 
  • Like
Reactions: nicnik

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,985
Sacramento, California
Yes, I agree, they are necessary to get hooked and for the transition. But most people do not even know that after desperately seeking and not really finding their "allday liquid" they could give unflavored (- or minimally flavored) liquid a chance, because it is vapeable.

Yesterday I read somebody's goodbye from vaping because he could not find a liquid he likes. Do we know this other side of the coin - how many people stop vaping just because of equating liquid with aggressive flavoring?

OK this is a bit off topic - on the other hand, maybe at least a small part of being a "dishonest liquid vendor".
I'm not entirely sure how not wanting to eliminate certain flavor profiles/chemicals inhibits the availability of light/unflavored liquids.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,927
Wisconsin
It most certainly has been proven 20 million, 7.2 million won lawsuits, among many other lawsuits, it says it most certainly has been proven in courts of law the resulting exposure to diacetyl..

diacetyl lawsuit - Google Search

I don't think this is saying what you think it is saying and for sure not saying that 7.2 million people have won lawsuits.

OJ was proved innocent in a court of law. By your logic, he is then, without a doubt, innocent.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,927
Wisconsin
This is a little story about four eliquid sellers named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.

Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done

But heaven forbid that eLiquid buyers do anything. I mean, that would be too much work. Or, no wait, wait, too much money.

Instead, let's blame somebody and claim we are Nobody... until we get to court. Then we can claim we are everybody, and that our body is their business, and that some body needs to pay for the utter and pathetic lack of responsibility we take in what goes into our body based on the utter and pathetic amount of nonsense that comes from the mind.
 
Last edited:

Rossum

Eleutheromaniac
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 14, 2013
16,081
105,222
SE PA
But heaven forbid that eLiquid buyers do anything. I mean, that would be too much work. Or, no wait, wait, too much money.

Instead, let's blame somebody and claim we are Nobody... until we get to court. Then we can claim we are everybody, and that our body is their business, and that some body needs to pay for the utter and pathetic lack of responsibility we take in what goes into our body based on the utter and pathetic lack of nonsense that comes from the mind.
I think I have the solution to that. See my sig.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,927
Wisconsin
I've just blogged my thoughts on the DA/AP issue. I've approached this from a wider and historical perspective.

It's a bit of an essay, but I wanted to get all my thoughts down!

Read it here: Confused about diacetyl? You should be | Vaping.com

Since I'm not on the same side as what is turning into the majority (of vocal people) and yet am aligned with the conclusion of this piece when it says, "the absolute worst thing vapers can do is panic and feed more panic."

Not sure if any on this thread are panicking, but fairly confident many are feeding more panic.

Anyway, since I'm not on the same page as what I perceive to be the majority, I am inclined to take certain segments of this essay to task. If SJ responds, great, but being on open forum, I just assume it be discussed openly.

From the section on "Why are DA/AP in e-liquids?"

He went to the vaping community and crowdsourced funding for a large test of popular e-liquid brands which he purchased anonymously. Again, what came back shocked him - the vast majority (74%) of the sweet flavored liquids he tested came back with DA/AP, and 47.3% of DA and 41.5% of AP-containing samples exposed consumers to levels higher than the safety limits.

I think it needs to be re-emphasized after this is said what was said just a few paragraphs earlier.

Those manufacturers requested of their flavor suppliers that the flavoring compounds they supply did not contain DA, and most thought that this was the end of the story.

This needs to be stated again / re-emphasized because in essence it is where we are right now and what consumers are clamoring for. For someone else to do the work, and for them to be appeased with literally zero proof, but instead that trust/faith will somehow get concerned vaping consumers where they say they want to go on this issue. But that has already been tried. And Dr. F.'s study would mean a little bit more in historical context if every politically aware vaper simply acknowledged that we have seen industry inform consumers on this issue.

Yet, now we consumers are in that ANTZ-prone position of being able to say they lied to us. Ya know, to scapegoat ourselves from any sense of responsibility in the matter. Furthermore, without that emphasis it seems like industry is the only one playing catch up when reality clearly shows consumers are way way behind on the issue (even most on this thread), science is way behind on the issue (heck just go read the B.O. Wikipedia article for enough maybes/potential type statements to realize science really doesn't know) and that politics is way behind. But right about now, the politics matter more than anything. In the long run, the consumer's interest / health matters most. But unless consumers are asleep at the wheel, it's not like most in industry aren't well aware that their hand could very soon (1 month to no more than 3 years) be forced on this issue, along with umpteen other issues of "potential long term effects."

It is only because of the politics that consumers can dare say "we were lied to." A little dose of honesty matched with tough love would poke holes into that rationalization for irresponsibility in seconds. Maybe nanoseconds.

How vaping community doesn't see this issue as being set up like a bowling pin to be knocked down (to stigmatization level of smokers/smoking) is a bit beyond me. But then again, there are many among us who think "they lied to us" applies solely and only to BT's actions in their choice to be smokers / engage in smoking. So, perhaps it's just par for the course.

As this whole line of thought plays into the concluding section, I just assume quote that in its entirety:

What should the industry be doing?

My personal view is that unless and until the industry can show that DA/AP in e-liquid is safe for vapers, those whose liquids contain it should make it clear to consumers this is the case, either through a labelling convention or something else. This won’t solve everything, but it will at least confer some agency to the consumer to make informed decisions. I think the community really does need to push industry hard for this - even those who have no problem with consuming DA/AP should at least consider those who really do not want to, and have the right to know.

Of course, there are other dynamics at play, such as the media relentlessly causing fear and uncertainty, but I think this idea that informed vapers become more concerned over time should be taken seriously by industry players who want to remain competitive, and it serves vapers well by keeping a perpetual check on the safety of vaping products.

Overlooking consumer responsibility and testing (yet again), I do realize consumers are going to push on industry for this. But they will be doing this with most knowing that ANTZ will be right there with them pushing against the industry. Oh what strange bedfellows that will make.

The FDA will be pushing as well in a quasi scientific / mostly political way. Many who agree with pushing will seemingly resist this (FDA deeming), unless they can get exactly what it is they want. But there's the rub. Let's say 10 vapers in this thread say, "all we are saying is published reports of lab results." Okay, but what if 10 other vapers are saying "that's too much" while 10 more are saying, "that doesn't nearly go far enough." Then what? Clearly vaping community and industry has demonstrated a lack of cohesion and responsibility (completely lacking on personal responsibility), so if I were non vaper, or ANTZ like, or someone that still thought FDA is a good thing, then I'd think the FDA can handle the pushing and you little vapers go hang out in the corner over there while the 'adults' attend to this inevitable push that needs to occur against the industry. I mean, you are all for us pushing (hard) right? Then just support the efforts from those who have a long standing history in such matters and who will be very responsive in dealing with this issue. All we ask is that you don't fight us any more.

And if you can manage to feed the panic when one of your vendors is nailed for high DA/AP, that would be extremely helpful. Who knows, maybe one day when you stop vaping, you can join the team!
 

Mr.Mann

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 30, 2011
17,401
40,572
46
All over the place
And what if those tests are false? I mean, what if, heaven forbid, you are being lied to?

By that logic (if it really is such), we could not trust our own test results unless we tested it from multiple sources right? Or maybe we build our own GC-MS and test it ourselves, right? Is that consumer responsibility?
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,927
Wisconsin
By that logic (if it really is such), we could not trust our own test results unless we tested it from multiple sources right? Or maybe we build our own GC-MS and test it ourselves, right? Is that consumer responsibility?

Explain why you wouldn't be able to trust your own observations / tests?

I agree multiple sources would give more credibility, but not provide absolute proof. I'm thinking no one actually requires absolute proof. Just appeasement.

To me, honest responsibility would start with consumer first / foremost. Then when that is done, industry push from consumer would make some sense, but really only needs to be done by those who a) care enough about this issue and b) have effective / efficient relationship with their vendor(s). Meaning, push on own vendors that you care about, but to think the whole industry must acquiesce is not free market.

If feeling this ought to be easy for industry and should start there, then join the industry. From the other side of this argument, I can't think of why you wouldn't knowing you'd be the pioneers who are distributing the cleanest (albeit the least tasty) products around.
 

Rossum

Eleutheromaniac
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 14, 2013
16,081
105,222
SE PA
Not sure if any on this thread are panicking, but fairly confident many are feeding more panic.
I'm not panicked. I simply find it sad that the antis actually seem to have a point when they say we DON'T know what's in the liquid we're vaping. :facepalm:

Yet, now we consumers are in that ANTZ-prone position of being able to say they lied to us. Ya know, to scapegoat ourselves from any sense of responsibility in the matter.
That's why I'm going to TAKE responsibility as a consumer and DEMAND test results from vendors, otherwise I'll either not buy their product or, if I really want that product despite a lack of test results from the vendor, I'll have it tested myself.

And if you can manage to feed the panic when one of your vendors is nailed for high DA/AP
Nobody has or will be "nailed" for high diketones unless they try to hide them from those consumers who don't want to take the risk of vaping high levels of diketones.

And what if those tests are false? I mean, what if, heaven forbid, you are being lied to?
It's one thing to use weasel words like, "We don't ADD any DA or AP" and a whole 'nother thing to publish falsified test results. When anyone can have a liquid tested for diketones for $175, and when retailers and members of the community actually start having such tests done, to publish falsified results would be beyond stupid.
 

Mr.Mann

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 30, 2011
17,401
40,572
46
All over the place
Explain why you wouldn't be able to trust your own observations / tests?

I agree multiple sources would give more credibility, but not provide absolute proof. I'm thinking no one actually requires absolute proof. Just appeasement.

To me, honest responsibility would start with consumer first / foremost. Then when that is done, industry push from consumer would make some sense, but really only needs to be done by those who a) care enough about this issue and b) have effective / efficient relationship with their vendor(s). Meaning, push on own vendors that you care about, but to think the whole industry must acquiesce is not free market.

If feeling this ought to be easy for industry and should start there, then join the industry. From the other side of this argument, I can't think of why you wouldn't knowing you'd be the pioneers who are distributing the cleanest (albeit the least tasty) products around.

Because like you posited, heaven forbid we are even being lied to by labs.

So when you said, "And what if those tests are false? I mean, what if, heaven forbid, you are being lied to?," I want to point out that this thread we are in is not about vendors showing fake tests, it about the reaction to vendors in our industry (I won't even call it a community here) lying about the results of their tests. And to some of us, our vendors lying is worthy of rebuke. Not fear mongering or feeding into panic, just calling out those that should get no pass.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that consumers could do their own tests, but let's not make it seem like it's somehow as easy as a testing nicotine content. It's really easy to say, "go test it yourself," but I think the more reasonable and practical thing to say is to just purchase from those that do. And let's not get it twisted, one way to make tasty liquid is to go the easy route, but it sure as hell ain't the only way to make tasty liquids.
 
Last edited:

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,272
USA midwest
As a wine geek, I'm very familiar with a phenomenon called "Super Taster". Some people have well above normal quantities of taste buds in their tongue.

I can't drink straight O.J. or most other juices. It tastes thick and syrupy to me. I have to water it 50%. Whole milk tastes like a stick of butter. I want to scrape the fat off my tongue.

OMG. You just described me.

I will be at restaurant table with other people and mention how a certain ingredient compliments something in the dish.....they will look at me and say "there's X in there? I can't taste it at all!" Then we call the chef over, and yup, he put an herb in there or a certain ingredient and tells me I'm right.

Most food tastes way over salted to me as well. I feel dehydrated after eating out. Yes, whole milk tastes like Crisco to me it's got so much FAT in it.

Well good to know I am not alone. And yes, i can vape "cheap" because of this. I can cut vendor eliquid down 3X with VG,, end up with 90ml from a 30ml bottle and I'm good. :)
 

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,806
62
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
OMG. You just described me.

I will be at restaurant table with other people and mention how a certain ingredient compliments something in the dish.....they will look at me and say "there's X in there? I can't taste it at all!" Then we call the chef over, and yup, he put an herb in there or a certain ingredient and tells me I'm right.

Most food tastes way over salted to me as well. I feel dehydrated after eating out. Yes, whole milk tastes like Crisco to me it's got so much FAT in it.

Well good to know I am not alone. And yes, i can vape "cheap" because of this. I can cut vendor eliquid down 3X with VG,, end up with 90ml from a 30ml bottle and I'm good. :)

Well it's good to know that maybe my need for high flavoring will ease, as my buds recover; I'm not quite that extreme, but I do find most restaurant food too something, either salty or sweet, and always too fatty. And I can't say that whole milk tastes like butter or crisco, but it does taste like full-fat heavy cream to me -- been used to 2% for 20+ yrs; we tried 1% for a while, but it does a horrible job in coffee, so we went back to 2%.

Andria
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,927
Wisconsin
I'm not panicked. I simply find it sad that the antis actually seem to have a point when they say we DON'T know what's in the liquid we're vaping. :facepalm:

This would be the feeding the panic part of the equation. At the molecular level, we could talk about anything you ingest and I'm thinking overwhelming majority (or everyone but about 20,000 people on the planet) would not know everything that is in that product. Including tap water.

That's why I'm going to TAKE responsibility as a consumer and DEMAND test results from vendors, otherwise I'll either not buy their product or, if I really want that product despite a lack of test results from the vendor, I'll have it tested myself.

The emphasis on demand strikes me as ANTZ type rhetoric. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, but I do stand by it. Why not just ask the question directly and if not liking the response, move on?

Nobody has or will be "nailed" for high diketones unless they try to hide them from those consumers who don't want to take the risk of vaping high levels of diketones.

Also strikes me as ANTZ type rhetoric. If you want to know, truly want to know, you'd do the testing yourself. If not, then a) you don't truly want to know and b) if 'nailing' is on the table (for you, anyone), it ought to start with the consumer.

Why be overly concerned with FDA enforced regulations when there are these type of consumers around? MSA, anyone?

It's one thing to use weasel words like, "We don't ADD any DA or AP" and a whole 'nother thing to publish falsified test results. When anyone can have a liquid tested for diketones for $175, and when retailers and members of the community actually start having such tests done, to publish falsified results would be beyond stupid.

The falsified thing could go a bunch of ways, I can see many ways that could play out. The most stupid would be to do what you are alluding to. But the one I see as likely as, "oh we can't trust that lab. Those are the people that said x vendor was okay, when we all know that was off by .7 microns. What? Do they really think we aren't paying attention to this stuff?" Or it could be that some say 5 ppb is acceptable, but then science du jour says it is 3 ppb that is what ought to be acceptable, and while not actually falsifying anything, just the fact that the company was stupid enough to think that the other 2 ppb would be okay is so over the top, I'd be surprised if the angry mob allows them to stay in business without a good old fashion social media witch hunt.

Or it could be lab that lacks transparency got the samples / companies mixed up. Oops, sorry. Turns out y vendor was good all along, but that other stuff we told you was at zero, yeah, that's like way over the limit. Sorry about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KattMamma

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,927
Wisconsin
I want to point out that this thread we are in is not about vendors showing fake tests, it about the reaction to vendors in our industry (I won't even call it a community here) lying about the results of their tests. And to some of us, our vendors lying is worthy of rebuke. Not fear mongering or feeding into panic, just calling out those that should get no pass.

The kind of lying you are talking about is, thus far, challenging to call a lie. Not impossible, and I don't give the vendor a free pass. But it is similar to me to vaping enthusiast saying, "it's safer than smoking." Or really anything dealing with health / safety of the product. It's the antithesis of the ANTZ rhetoric which many of us (myself included) look at as deceptive / propaganda. For all we (truly) know, it might not be safer than smoking. Or some of the claims we have made to say friends / family may be things that we weren't 100% sure of. So, if any of them came back 5 to 30 years later with updated info, would that mean we were blatantly lying to them at the time we made our claims? I think not.

I also think 'we' knew in say 2010 that this could be happening to a lot of product that is available. For sure understood that it could be happening with 75% of product around based on Dr. F. research. So, that would mean all of our claims about product would be best stipulated with whatever we are currently saying is the degree to which this is a viable health concern. Without that stipulation, are we not 'lying' about safety/health factor of eCigs? Does not our spin on this matter (the lies we tell) benefit us going forward? Benefit those who might be potential users?

Thing is, I don't really see it as lying, nor do I see the vendors as lying. I see it more along lines of ignorance, and that no one really knows. Includes scientists. Consumers? Not really. Adversaries? Not really. Politicians? Please. Industry? Perhaps, as that includes scientists, but I'd go with not really and also arguably more than anyone.

The idea of it being discussed in terms of lying reminds me of the smoking debate as if this is all being revisited and a chance to have it play out differently, yet I currently see it playing out the same. Because of the stigma around smoking / smokers, it would be an uphill battle to argue against what is 'established' as lies for that industry, but I'd almost rather have that discussion because I think winning there would be easier than here in vape land where things are so skewed right now, it is challenging to see beyond feeding the panic. The idea of it being discussed in terms of lying is politics. We are now in ANTZ territory and seemingly have no 2nd thoughts about where we are at, nor where this is going.

I knew in 2012 that this sort of thing would come up, this notion of 'avoidable risk' and that it would seemingly catch industry off guard. But didn't think it would play out so lopsided toward ANTZ logic being the only way to frame things, where industry takes on 100% onus, and consumer raising the concerns to level of "off with their heads" is somehow argued for as "being responsible." I'm certain DA/AP will not be the only thing that visits us in this way. It thus far hasn't been, but I do think there will be others. Man, if I were on team ANTZ, I would think our work will be very easy going forward. Just like it was with the smoking propaganda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KattMamma

crxess

Grumpy Ole Man
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 20, 2012
24,438
46,123
70
Williamsport Md
If people took 1/2 the stance on Tobacco they seem to take with e-cig related issues, there would be no Big Tobaco to worry about.

Is it up to the industry to bring us safe products - Yes.
Are all the safety concerns yet known - No.

Does this relate to only e-cigs/liquids - No.

Now, as to lowest possible risk............ That is simple. Quit vaping as soon as reasonably possible.
I personally use less than 1/2 to 1/3 the flavoring in most commercially available e-liquids. I do NOT like the taste of unflavored and while I would vape it is absolutely necessary...... I do not want to. I believe as long as we can agree vaping is much less unsafe than smoking, I should have that right.

After all Government has given BT the right to freely keep killing people slowly as long as the taxes get paid.
 

Mr.Mann

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 30, 2011
17,401
40,572
46
All over the place
The kind of lying you are talking about is, thus far, challenging to call a lie. Not impossible, and I don't give the vendor a free pass. But it is similar to me to vaping enthusiast saying, "it's safer than smoking." Or really anything dealing with health / safety of the product. It's the antithesis of the ANTZ rhetoric which many of us (myself included) look at as deceptive / propaganda. For all we (truly) know, it might not be safer than smoking. Or some of the claims we have made to say friends / family may be things that we weren't 100% sure of. So, if any of them came back 5 to 30 years later with updated info, would that mean we were blatantly lying to them at the time we made our claims? I think not.

I also think 'we' knew in say 2010 that this could be happening to a lot of product that is available. For sure understood that it could be happening with 75% of product around based on Dr. F. research. So, that would mean all of our claims about product would be best stipulated with whatever we are currently saying is the degree to which this is a viable health concern. Without that stipulation, are we not 'lying' about safety/health factor of eCigs? Does not our spin on this matter (the lies we tell) benefit us going forward? Benefit those who might be potential users?

Thing is, I don't really see it as lying, nor do I see the vendors as lying. I see it more along lines of ignorance, and that no one really knows. Includes scientists. Consumers? Not really. Adversaries? Not really. Politicians? Please. Industry? Perhaps, as that includes scientists, but I'd go with not really and also arguably more than anyone.

The idea of it being discussed in terms of lying reminds me of the smoking debate as if this is all being revisited and a chance to have it play out differently, yet I currently see it playing out the same. Because of the stigma around smoking / smokers, it would be an uphill battle to argue against what is 'established' as lies for that industry, but I'd almost rather have that discussion because I think winning there would be easier than here in vape land where things are so skewed right now, it is challenging to see beyond feeding the panic. The idea of it being discussed in terms of lying is politics. We are now in ANTZ territory and seemingly have no 2nd thoughts about where we are at, nor where this is going.

I knew in 2012 that this sort of thing would come up, this notion of 'avoidable risk' and that it would seemingly catch industry off guard. But didn't think it would play out so lopsided toward ANTZ logic being the only way to frame things, where industry takes on 100% onus, and consumer raising the concerns to level of "off with their heads" is somehow argued for as "being responsible." I'm certain DA/AP will not be the only thing that visits us in this way. It thus far hasn't been, but I do think there will be others. Man, if I were on team ANTZ, I would think our work will be very easy going forward. Just like it was with the smoking propaganda.

"Don't air our dirty laundry!"

That's a goofy and cowardly notion that is adopted by a few within all minority groups or any group that is oppressed or attacked. Some say: you can't, even among each other, seek or speak the truth of what is wrong within your group becasue that gives the oppressor (in this case the government) motivation to do what it was going to do all along! Really?! Please! They were going after vapers before there was a real community. Before cloud competitions. Before there was an exploding mod. Before there was a diketone issue. Before cartoon labels ever existed. Before before. And before that.

Unless you are Mr. Super Vaper, *protector of the vape world*, I think that business of associating other vapers with "ANTZ" should be thrown in the trash along with the talking points that you want to discard.
 
Last edited:

LouisLeBeau

Shenaniganery Jedi! Too naughty for Sin Bin
ECF Veteran
Jul 23, 2013
14,099
43,299
Thing is, I don't really see it as lying, nor do I see the vendors as lying. I see it more along lines of ignorance, and that no one really knows. Includes scientists. Consumers? Not really. Adversaries? Not really. Politicians? Please. Industry? Perhaps, as that includes scientists, but I'd go with not really and also arguably more than anyone.

Not to be insulting, but this is as disingenuous and apologist as it gets. Let's not unnecessarily muddy the waters more than they already are. If we are talking about 5p specifically, the history of what took place is clear. They were asked for test results. Results they HAD. Results they KNEW were NOT satisfactory based on what we think we know now. If they had provided those results and all of their other fairy tale nonsense about What Isn't Know, it would be another matter entirely. Instead, they forced an APPROVED RETAILER to fund their OWN tests, and then responded with a C&D, and OLD HISTORICAL DATA that had been asked for numerous times and that they denied existed, results that they KNEW would cause a major ....estorm.

The obfuscation of all of this is getting rather sickening. It is what it IS.

I have been in contact with numerous retailers about pulling this line out of their offerings until a lot of questions get resolved. One retailer specifically was very cooperative, and mentioned that he was sickened that this and other suspect juice manufacturers are willing to spend TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to host vendor tables at trade shows, but are not wlling to spend a small fraction of that to have their OWN PRODUCT tested, leaving the onus on the retailers to do so, and then threatening them with legal action when they decide to return the offensive brew and notify their customer as to the WHY.

Lets stop pretending we're helping the Antz. Manufacturers who are poisoning us and covering it up? THAT is what is ultimately helping the Antz. This is the whole point of knowing history. To NOT repeat it. In the harsh light of historical perspective, Ralph Nader, once the most venerated person in Detroit, did MORE for the survival of the American Auto industry than the past 3 heads of GM combined. If left to their own devices, the Big 3 would have perished long ago in distrust, lawsuits, and customer alienation. The NHTSA didn't become a government watchdog because of Ralph Nader, but because of the actions of automotive manufacturers. Lets keep it straight, and real.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread