Confused about Diacetyl? You should be - read now

[aikanae1]

I mix using only diketone free flavors, and I mix all of my own flavors. I don't buy .... from Premium vendors who don't even list the lab certicication on the bottle. Mix your own, and be safe. And stay under 100 watts for god sakes.

Do you test your DIY? That's the only way I'm aware of that can claim diacetyl / diketone free. Precussers can combine to create a reaction when mixed. Steeping can accelerate that reaction. Nicotine can contain precussers. I haven't seen a nic supplier that tests for diketones yet, but there goes the idea that unflavored is free from diketones..

I seriously think this does need further study, but the idea that all juices need to be diketone free has been blown out of proportion and maybe impossible at this moment in time. I think it's quite likely many juices are submitted for testing when they are freshly mixed, getting low results and as the juice ages, diketones grows = part of the reason many tast better after steeping. If the same juice was tested a month or 3 months later the results would show a very different amount of diketones present. This is my therory after reviewing what brewers know about diacetyl forming.

The jury is still out on how much of a health risk diacetyl is to begin with. The OSHA regs came at the request of a labor union, not scientific studies. That may still be valid however, but it's not conclusive. Medicine is still gathering information on how much a threat OB is, whether it's been under dignosned in the past, particle sizes, actions in the lungs and it could be a combination of factors. I have seen many medical assumptions in medicine that sound as if they have the answer turn out to be wrong upon further investigation/clinical studies. We just don't know yet.

Do I dare mention there was a recent study showing butyric acid aids in the asorbtion of diketones?

Sometimes jumping on the diactyl causing harm bandwagon seems very close to what ANTZ is doing to ecigs. They are drawing conclusions without looking into the situation further. Of course everyone should have the facts to make their own choice and if a manufacturer knowingly is selling juice with diketones in it, they should tell the consumer - but I'm not convinced that manufacturers are doing that when they test freshly mixed juice and the results are negative, but the results are positive from another lab at a later date. Why would a lab lie? Are they falsifying results?

 

[Troll from behind]

What ever the final result might be, don't think ignoring it or trying to quiet the crowd for political (AND/OR financial) reasons is the right way to go either, wasn't that what the tobacco companies tried?
Alas I for one knew, that as the vaping gets older (potentially) issues bad to the health WILL surface.
After all it's still better way to get ones nics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jman8]

What ever the final result might be, don't think ignoring it or trying to quiet the crowd for political (AND/OR financial) reasons is the right way to go either, wasn't that what the tobacco companies tried?

You misspelled "Hillary Clinton."

 

[aikanae1]

You misspelled "Hillary Clinton."

????
What's she got to do with it?

 

[zoiDman]

????
What's she got to do with it?

Nothing.

It is just an Attempt to Derail this Thread.

 

[Jman8]

????
What's she got to do with it?

I think her presence right now shows that many people do get the idea of not responding to direct concerns about past actions as a very wise move. She stands far better chance (politically, financially, etc.) among supporters and neutral observers by not responding to inquiries of wrong doing. IMO, it is a far better and more prevalent example than citing tobacco companies as to what likes of 5P are currently up to.

 

[zoiDman]

I think her presence right now shows that many people do get the idea of not responding to direct concerns about past actions as a very wise move. She stands far better chance (politically, financially, etc.) among supporters and neutral observers by not responding to inquiries of wrong doing. IMO, it is a far better and more prevalent example than citing tobacco companies as to what likes of 5P are currently up to.

Are you saying that we should just Kick this Entire Five Pawns Fiasco under the Rug because it is Better for Five Pawns Financially? And that it will somehow help us Politically?

The First one I can See. And it is a Nice Approach. If you are Five Pawns that is.

But the Second one I am having a Hard Time Fathoming. How is Turning a Blind Eye to a e-Liquid Manufacture Lying to their Customers/Retailers about Potentially Harmful Ingredients going to Help persuade Anyone that the e-Cigarette Market Can and has a Right to be Self-Regulated?

 

[Jman8]

Are you saying that we should just Kick this Entire Five Pawns Fiasco under the Rug because it is Better for Five Pawns Financially? And that it will somehow help us Politically?

The First one I can See. And it is a Nice Approach. If you are Five Pawns that is.

But the Second one I am having a Hard Time Fathoming. How is Turning a Blind Eye to a e-Liquid Manufacture Lying to their Customers/Retailers about Potentially Harmful Ingredients going to Help persuade Anyone that the e-Cigarette Market Can and has a Right to be Self-Regulated?

I think we ought to give 5P a lot more benefit of doubt around notions of lying and use of DA / AP, given the current landscape of the industry, especially in light of looming regulations and ANTZ playbook.

I think even if it were agreed that 5P did this to themselves, it is worthy of politically aware vapers to not add fuel to the fire, aka feed the panic.

It is very likely that 5P is not only one engaged in the problem some seem to think is isolated to 5P. I see 5P guilty of trying to be PC, then running into issues where their political correctness was insufficient given the political forces at work. I think 5P made a really dumb move to claim DA / AP free. I think even if a company actually is DA / AP free, it is a little dumb to state this right now, but I'm not real hard on this position. I just think it would open the doors to more scrutiny for any possible harms that could be found via a tiny amount of researching. Like what I did with C9. That was easy and took me all of 10 minutes of researching.

 

[zoiDman]

I think we ought to give 5P a lot more benefit of doubt around notions of lying and use of DA / AP, given the current landscape of the industry, especially in light of looming regulations and ANTZ playbook.

I think even if it were agreed that 5P did this to themselves, it is worthy of politically aware vapers to not add fuel to the fire, aka feed the panic.

It is very likely that 5P is not only one engaged in the problem some seem to think is isolated to 5P. I see 5P guilty of trying to be PC, then running into issues where their political correctness was insufficient given the political forces at work. I think 5P made a really dumb move to claim DA / AP free. I think even if a company actually is DA / AP free, it is a little dumb to state this right now, but I'm not real hard on this position. I just think it would open the doors to more scrutiny for any possible harms that could be found via a tiny amount of researching. Like what I did with C9. That was easy and took me all of 10 minutes of researching.

Guilty of trying to be PC. Seriously?

I think they Lied to their Customers about Da and AP levels. And their Press Release shows that they have had Lab Reports, their Own Lab Reports, that confirm this.

You can Spin things Anyway you want. And say that we Shouldn't be talking about it for Fear of 'more scrutiny".

I just can't see how Not Talking about it or Not Wanting retailers to be transparent about what is in their e-Liquids makes the e-Cigarette Market appear to be Responsible.

Or inline with Other Markets that Produce Consumable Products.

 

[Visus]

The one thing I think we all can agree on, "premium vendors having that D/AP free statement and huge e-liquid costs should be above and beyond in having safe ejuice."

Us who DIY do know we can make eliquid and it is premium sauce for literally pennies and thats without having to buy huge bulk.. My ejuice literally cost me per 30ml ~85 cents to make and its good.. I do buy vendors e juice every month as I cannot make some juices that I like and they don't share recipe.. Njoy is one and Lsmoke is another and I do believe the local company L smoke has the best gotdang vanilla on the planet, its probably nothing but diacetyl its so good IDK.. lol Oh man you gotta try it, its sublime... Mehinks its Nude Nicotines vanilla but I have to buy it to see, I can taste a hint of patchouli in it.. I hope so, then that sauce is definitely D/AP free sauce then... Meh ranting/worried bout me favorite sauce but I have at least ~14 bottles of vanilla flavoring that is not very good.. Don't get me started on creams lol..
---
One thing fer sure the companies that have set themselves up with that"" statement have opened their own can of lawsuits.
Red Bull it gives you wings statement got them in a 15million dollar lawsuit bind and it was won... whoa.. I am still waiting on my 15 dollar coupon tho...

 

[Jman8]

Guilty of trying to be PC. Seriously?

I think they Lied to their Customers about Da and AP levels. And their Press Release shows that they have had Lab Reports, their Own Lab Reports, that confirm this.

You can Spin things Anyway you want. And say that we Shouldn't be talking about it for Fear of 'more scrutiny".

I just can't see how Not Talking about it or Not Wanting retailers to be transparent about what is in their e-Liquids makes the e-Cigarette Market appear to be Responsible.

Or inline with Other Markets that Produce Consumable Products.

Where did I say don't talk about it?

I'm questioning / debating what the talk is about. As long as threads are open to discuss this, I intend on talking about it and not holding back on my spin. I disagree that onus is on vendors. Not going to be shy about this. You want to know what's in your liquid, you'll do your own testing. Want to spin that into only vendors ought to be testing, I'll call that to task to try and be clear on what the message is, as that strikes me as ANTZ rhetoric, or things that are part of FDA deeming.

Other markets that produce consumable products aren't in many cases saying how much of unwanted substances are in their product. Someone earlier brought up pop tarts and as noted on label it says "may contain soy or wheat." There's no lab results / transparency there. You go to a restaurant and order a meal, do you expect lab results? Where is this other market you are referring to where you get lab results upon request, and that mention molecular amounts of things you may be concerned about?

 

[zoiDman]

If you wrote Kellogg and ask them if Aspartame was in their Pop Tarts and they Told you No. No Aspartame. But then it turns out that they were Using Aspartame, there would be a Boat Load of people that would be Very Vocal about it.

Why are e-liquids any Different?

If I put something in My Body, do I have a Right Not to Be Lied to by a Manufacture? I believe I do. If you want to Twist this into I'm all for Deeming, or that it ANTZ rhetoric, I don't Really Care.

You say that if I want to know what is in my e-liquids, that I should be the One to Test them. Why?

How does this make the e-Cigarette Market better than if a Retailer/OEM tests the Products that Consumers put Directly into their Lungs?

 

[Jman8]

If you wrote Kellogg and ask them if Aspartame was in their Pop Tarts and they Told you No. No Aspartame. But then it turns out that they were Using Aspartame, there would be a Boat Load of people that would be Very Vocal about it.

Why are e-liquids any Different?

Depends on how you wish to characterize the vocalization of the Kellogg's lashing out and who would be the boat load of eLiquid lashers.

You say that if I want to know what is in my e-liquids, that I should be the One to Test them. Why?

So you can then rightfully claim knowledge. Without it, I'd question your use of the word, and your understanding of what you think you are going to get from industry.

How does this make the e-Cigarette Market better than if a Retailer/OEM tests the Products that Consumers put Directly into their Lungs?

It would provide the (truly) concerned consumer with direction observation regarding their (actual) concern. With retailer testing, you will be relying on faith/trust. IOW, you won't actually know.

I still have running wager for anyone that cares, where I claim more incidents of harm will come during regulated market than the current market. The regulated market will rely on consumer trust, and I predict will be burned by it. If you disagree, let's wager. Otherwise, let the debating continue.

I enjoy defeating ANTZ rhetoric.

 

[zoiDman]

So the Best way is for Each Individual to test their Own e-Liquids?

And you see that as Viable even to those who can Not Afford such Testing? Or those who have No Clue that Maybe they Should even be Testing thier e-liquids because they are Part of the 95% of Vapers who are Not Plug into Forums.

OK, Sounds Good.

You shouldn't have any Problems Convincing the Majority of Vapers that they need to do this. Or Policy Makers either for that matter.

And of Course, Anything Short of this would just be ANTZ Rhetoric.

 

[aikanae1]

I think there is a need for caution. I doubt if 5p is the only ones. It makes more sense to me to help those wiling to clean up their act / juice than it does to drum them out of business.

There is also a huge divide between those testing and those that aren't. It's not going to encourage more testing to crucify those that come up with poor results.

I find it hard to compare results without standardized perimeters / guidelines such that were comparing apples to apples. There's too many variables. It sounds as if it's possible to test freshly mixed juice with no nic and get clean results when that liquid might not be clean even a month later with nic added. Idk if that's a factor but I don't see how it's possible to know if there isn't something some standardization. Age of juice, nic or no nic, etc.

This is the tip of the iceberg. There are going to be many more questions about health and safety coming up - nickle coils? So it's probably better to figure out a way to set up our own scientific review panel or something along those lines - hopefully avoiding "hive mentality".

 

[Mr.Mann]

...Otherwise, let the debating continue.

@Jman8,

Just curious: in general, do you think that vendors have or had any responsibility in how this diketone issue is playing out in our community? If so, what? If not, why not?

 

[DeAnna2112]

How convenient, i can open a eliquid business profit off of it, but have no responsibility to ensure that the eliquids I sell do not contain diketones, which has been a widely known concern for some time now across the vaping industry. That burden apparently falls on the consumer. Not only does the consumer have to pay for a product, but they are now burdened with testing the product to ensure it does not contain diketones. Wow were do i sign up for that free meal ticket...i make money and get to play business owner and wear a business hat and don't even have be responsible for the products i sell, much less address well known potential health risk that comes with doing business in this industry.

--Spoken like a true shady business owner who has a motive to defend these types business practices because clearly, they PROFIT from this kind of business mentality and ideology in the vaping industry!!

*raises eyebrow as some post are starting to smell of it*
​

Myself, I will be vigilant in spreading the word about dikestones so people can do their own research and make their own decisions about it, and i will also be telling the story of a business called 5P and forewarn of the reality of other eliquid sellers out there doing the same. This awareness will further encourage vapers to shop only at businesses that test their liquids and back it up with lab test.
I will further support businesses being REQUIRED by LAW to disclose lab results to back up their claims, as well as disclosing if their product has NOT been tested for diketones, just to ensure that those who are out of the know about diketones, will now have a reason to research diketones and become informed before buying that product that has NOT been tested. This are to help weed out the shady businesses from the businesses that not only act professionally, but responsibly.

 

[Jman8]

So the Best way is for Each Individual to test their Own e-Liquids?

And you see that as Viable even to those who can Not Afford such Testing? Or those who have No Clue that Maybe they Should even be Testing thier e-liquids because they are Part of the 95% of Vapers who are Not Plug into Forums.

OK, Sounds Good.

Those that have no clue that testing ought to be done, are not those I am speaking about. I am speaking about those who think testing ought to be mandatory, regardless of what it costs.

 

[Jman8]

@Jman8,

Just curious: in general, do you think that vendors have or had any responsibility in how this diketone issue is playing out in our community? If so, what? If not, why not?

While I think vendors have various responsibilities, I don't think they have responsibility for how consumers may react to perceived problems / concerns within the industry. I think it would be wise for all vendors who are not 100% certain about diketone issue (which I see science not being 100% certain) to put out information along lines of, "product may contain diketones" (or whatever). But I don't think that ought to be mandatory. I think it unwise to say the opposite, as it does leave no room for reasonable doubt. As in, saying our product is diketone-free, would lead reasonable consumer to think there is zero in there, and at any time while consumer has the product, that it would never be present, assuming of course consumer isn't one adding it there (which would be unreasonable action by consumer).

I do personally wish industry as a whole were more on top of this issue, and that our political advocates were more on the same page. Akin to say formaldehyde scare or umpteen other issues we've been confronted with. But I also think that "industry as a whole" being all on same page on an issue is very challenging (regardless of the industry).

When I first got into eCigs, the whole issue of claiming whether your product will leads to smoking cessation was still playing out, even though I was into eCigs after the Leon ruling. I agree with Leon ruling and thought it dumb that vendors felt need to advertise in that fashion when word of mouth can easily cover that. Now it appears to me that more than 90% of the industry is on same page on that issue, even though I can't say it is 100% because I'll still see advertising that tries to communicate that in a roundabout way.

As long as the open market is free and under regulated, I think there will be some vendors who see opportunities to capitalize on certain things that will likely be items other vendors either tried (and got scrutinized for) or would never try, thinking it too risky to go in that direction. I don't think anyone ought to be telling the industry or individual vendors what ought to be mandatory without those sort of expressions being called out for what they are: desire for regulations, less of an open/free market. If it is only being communicated as vendor mandates and continually pushed as such, I would call that out as zealous.

 

[zoiDman]

Those that have no clue that testing ought to be done, are not those I am speaking about. I am speaking about those who think testing ought to be mandatory, regardless of what it costs.

So someone who has Never heard of Diacetyl or Acetyl Propionyl, they are not included in this conversation?

They just go along their Wary Way inhaling whatever a Retailer wants to into an e-Liquid. That's your answer to Diacetyl or Acetyl Propionyl ?