Buying ingredients around town?

[MD_Boater]

Tractor Supply has some and it says USP on it, BUT I haven't used it and can't tell you anything more. All I know it's in the Animal Health section. Hopefully someone can tell you if it's OK to vape.
Sometimes vape shops that sell their own e-liquids will sell plain PG. Couldn't hurt to ask.

In the case where it the manufacturer of a product puts "for animal use only", or "not for human consumption" on a label - I personally would heed the warnings.

They might not be licensed for manufacturing / distributing food or medical products, and their lawyers made them add the warning.

 

[Bennylava]

Benny... I have a friend that works for USP. If the label says "USP" on it and the vendor is not flat out lying, it conforms to the USP monograph. I was sitting in a restaurant within view of the USP HQ building in Rockville, MD with a USP employee (that I have known since I was 5) who told me that.

He was even wearing a shirt that said "USP" on it while we were having lunch.

I see what you're saying, but according to the links provided here, that USP rating indicates food grade. Which could have contaminants that you can digest, but you can't enhale. Lest you get popcorn lung and die. Or who knows, get some form of lung cancer. According to the stickies, only pharmaceutical grade should ever be used, because there is a margin of 5% of error (iirc) allowed in the USP rated ones. So basically you could be getting a maximum of 5% contaminants, and a minimum of 95% pure VG. If I understand the links correctly. In short, unless you can prove that particular USP rated product is 100% pure, (which some are, some aren't) then you shouldn't use it. Again, according to the articles.

 

[beckdg]

^ the "P" in USP stands for pharmacopoeia (pharmaceuticals). food grade is regulated simply be the FDA.

if the USP stamp is legit, it's pharmaceutical grade.

 

[Hoosier]

I checked out the PG @ Tractor Supply yesterday. Theirs was Ideal brand, was marked not for human consumption and had no foil seal on the top. Think I'll stick with Essential labs.

I wouldn't use that either. The gallons I purchased in TS all had seals and were good. No sense trusting anything with a USP label that isn't properly sealed so any tampering is clearly evident.

 

[Traver]

Has anyone tested this for 100% purity? If its really 100% pure as they say it is, why would they call it "food grade" and not "pharmaceutical grade"? Cause they could, and it would attract even more people. I noticed a lot of people in this thread are recommending and using that one.

http://www.essentialdepot.com/servlet/the-Glycerin-USP-Kosher-Vegetable/Categories

Once a bottle of pharmaceutical grade USP is opened it can no longer be sold as pharmaceutical grade USP. Pharmaceutical grade isn't just about purity. The conditions and possibility of contamination when it is handled are also taken into account. Records must also be kept so any batch can be traced if there is a problem.
Purity is not enough to decide whether or not a product is pharmaceutical grade USP. It is also the types of contaminants. The amount of water or other harmless chemical allowed is not going to be the same as something like Diethylene glycol, Known containment in glycerin.

 

[Bennylava]

^ the "P" in USP stands for pharmacopoeia (pharmaceuticals). food grade is regulated simply be the FDA.

if the USP stamp is legit, it's pharmaceutical grade.

Thank you very much sir. That clears up a few things. So basically anything with the USP stamp is 100% ok to vape.

Don't suffer the troll. We are nothing but entertainment.

I don't want to get the wrong thing and die, or get some disease. Your replies were a clear indication that you had no intention of reading the material that others here had suggested, so you'll have to forgive me if I write them off. Even with smoking, they at least had a vested interest in us living as long as possible, so that we could keep buying cigarettes. With this, we're on our own, so you can be damn sure I'm going to do my due diligence and know exactly what I'm doing. If that includes asking more questions after you think you've explained it but your reply was lacking or didn't answer my question, so be it. I'm not trying to be a jerk but at NO point in this thread was I trolling.

Purity is not enough to decide whether or not a product is pharmaceutical grade USP. It is also the types of contaminants. The amount of water or other harmless chemical allowed is not going to be the same as something like Diethylene glycol, Known containment in glycerin.

So even though my VG says its "100% pure" there can still be some doubt as to whether or not its good enough? How could that be possible if it is in fact, 100% pure? That would mean that there is no other chemical or molecule of any type in the container, except for VG. If there were something else in there, a contaminant, they wouldn't be able to sell it as 100%. Right? Or wrong? Here is the one I bought, sold as hand... moisturizer. Or something. But I tasted it, and its sweet, and it has the same consistency of vaping ejuice. The picture may be a little small to read the front label but you can just hit Ctrl +mousewheel and then you can read it. Didn't notice till I got home that it didn't actually have a USP stamp on it. But I can always return it if necessary.

NOW Foods Vegetable Glycerin (Liquid) - Free Shipping

 

[Hoosier]

"100% pure" doesn't mean what most folks think it means. First 100% anything is so close to impossible to do, it may as well be impossible. Even reagent standards are usually 99.9% and those standard are very expensive. (Like 1ml of PG is just a shade under $100.)

It's really just marketing. USP is 99.5% minimum and many USP labeled things are actually higher, but they are not 100%. If you see 100% pure and no binding standard on the label, it's all marketing. (And then know the standard because 100% tomato juice according to the USDA is allowed so many %'s of insect parts, mud, and various other contaminants, but the standard allows the tomato juice company to say 100% pure, even though it is not, because that is what the standard allows.) If there is no binding standard on the label and it says 100% pure, you are completely putting your trust in the company. A company that knows it is not 100% pure, maybe it is 99.4 or 99.7% and they are just rounding, but a company that knows it is not actually 100% pure, has no binding standard, and puts that lie on the label.

As an aside, NOW VG has a good reputation. Many mixers here have used it for years and love it. It is not Pharma (USP) but it is food grade. I don't use it, but doubt I would hesitate to use it if it was on hand and it cost me nothing. (We won't get into all the things I am willing to vape that are on the lists of "bad stuff to vape".)

 

[Traver]

Thank you very much sir. That clears up a few things. So basically anything with the USP stamp is 100% ok to vape.

Unless the label meets the USP monograph It is up to you to decide how is safe it to vape. For instance if the label says USP vegetable glycerin then it is not pharmaceutical grade. USP has no standard for pharmaceutical grade vegetable glycerin. So all you really have is your faith in the vender. When I see that I think they are trying to game the system and no longer trust them.

 

[MD_Boater]

This is like watching a cat chase its tail. To each his own.

My options were to pay attention to what a sticky on an internet forum says, or take the word of a trusted friend, who works in US Pharmacopoeia's headquarters (where they just happen to know a little bit about USP monographs).

My choice is to listen to what an actual USP expert says:

-The only actual labelling requirements that exist pertain only to samples sent to their lab for testing.

-Retail product labels can say whatever floats the manufacturer's boat, as long as they don't put "USP" on products that do not conform to the monograph.

So, read the sticky. Read what someone inside of USP says, and make your own choice. Just trying to help a brother out.

 

[MD_Boater]

...(And then know the standard because 100% tomato juice according to the USDA is allowed so many %'s of insect parts, mud, and various other contaminants, but the standard allows the tomato juice company to say 100% pure, even though it is not, because that is what the standard allows.)

Don't forget peanut butter. You really don't want to know what's in that. Not at all...

...(We won't get into all the things I am willing to vape that are on the lists of "bad stuff to vape".)

I wonder if we're related...

 

[MD_Boater]

...So even though my VG says its "100% pure" there can still be some doubt as to whether or not its good enough? How could that be possible if it is in fact, 100% pure?

Only if Dr. Evil purified it at his secret lab under the volcano using sharks with laser beams on their heads, then it would be 100% pure... Muawhahahahaha...

 

[rolygate]

We've been monitoring these issues for years and have taken the advice of professional chemists and pharmacists.

The individual vaper should buy a glycerine product marked 'Glycerine, USP' (USA) or 'Glycerine, BP' (UK) or 'Glycerine, EU' (in the EU). Assuming the product is not counterfeit, it will be the best grade available to the retail buyer. The label heading must be exactly this without any variation. The product may also be described in the smaller print as glycerol, glycerin, pharmaceutical grade, food grade, kosher, vegetable glycerine, etc. (as the small print is irrelevant).

This is not the same as the absolute best grade, which is only available in practice to manufacturers, due to MOQ issues. Because we have to give advice to both ecig manufacturers and retail buyers, our advice sometimes appears confusing, and I apologise for that.

The absolute best grade of glycerine is 100% synthetic because it is almost pure and the contaminant is likely to be water. We only know of one product of this type, Dow Optim. It is available in 18 litre jugs and up, and is the best possible base material for manufacturers.

Other suitable types for manufacturers are any glycerine product with a provable pharmaceutical license for inhalation, as used for example in asthma inhalers. However it has recently become necessary to order tests for a specific contaminant that may be present: see below.


The reason why Glycerine, USP is not the best choice for a manufacturer
For some time now the FDA has been warning about a specific type of contamination in glycerine products which has appeared in all grades including USP. This is called jatropha. The carcinogenic phorbol esters of the jatropha plant are found in biodiesel byproduct glycerine.

Because USP glycerine can be produced from any of the multiple feedstocks used to produce glycerine retail products, some USP glycerine will contain biodiesel byproduct glycerine (which of course qualifies as 'vegetable glycerine' as it is processed from vegetable sources) and may contain jatropha toxins. Currently there is no known way to exclude jatropha toxins from normal glycerine. The only solution is to use 100% synthetic glycerine, which is why it should be used by manufacturers of e-liquid products unless they have access to guaranteed pure products supported by analytical proof THAT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES DOCUMENTED TESTING for jatropha toxins.

A synthetic glycerine such as Dow Optim is the best solution for manufacturing. Retail customers could conceivably form a club to buy a minimum size jug of 18 litres.

We hope this explains the current situation regarding the purity of glycerine products, and especially the retail purchase vs manufacturing issues.

 

[beckdg]

rolygate;

first - thank you very much for weighing in with a wealth of information regarding safe materials. as we all know, the idea behind e-cigs is a safer, "healthy" alternative to smoking. to me, carcinogens in my liquid defeats some of that purpose.

so naturally, i have some questions regarding what you've just posted.

after your post, naturally i looked into dow optim. i see the specs on dows website list optim as 99.7% minimum purity. i also see the kosher certification, option for a sample and options for repackaging for resale, dow provided certificate of analysis', etc., etc.

then i see that most of the glycerine products easily found and commonly used for vaping are labeled as 99.5% pure (obviously not dow optim, thus running the risk for carcinogenic impurities).

then i see essential depot (for example) has glycerine with a rather wonky labeling system (on the bottles and in the msds) that leads me to think there's a likely hood it may not be usp certified. however - it claims to be kosher and usp and the certificate of analysis gives a specification that it's of minimum 99.7% purity and spectral analysis has shown the product to be of 99.84% purity.

what (in your opinion) is the likely hood that;

1. glycerine with such specs is in fact dow optim rebottled
2. glycerine with such specs is in fact synthetic

thank you in advance.

 

[rolygate]

Firstly, I don't know the answer to the question if Dow products are resold with other brand labels.

As a guess, I would imagine this is unlikely, because the Dow product is not going to be cheap, and you are talking about something more along the lines of an economy or mid-range product. Secondly, as Optim is the Rolls-Royce of glycerines, the idea that someone would sell it rebranded as a Ford does not make any sense.

Lastly, after a lifetime in engineering, I know that talk is cheap. Anyone can claim anything they feel like. They even repeat what they were told by the previous link in the chain of supply as if it had some kind of validity, when it's just hearsay and usually turns out to be fairy dust when investigated. I'd say to vendors in this kind of circumstance: "Show me the proof. If the situation is what you say it is, you have the proof right at your fingertips - so why are you hiding it?"

Somebody who says they have certificates of analysis showing 99.84% purity has certificates of analysis. Or they have nothing.

 

[MD_Boater]

It's your web site, so you can say whatever you want. I'm listening to the folks that work for USP.

 

[Traver]

The reason why Glycerine, USP is not the best choice for a manufacturer
For some time now the FDA has been warning about a specific type of contamination in glycerine products which has appeared in all grades including USP. This is called jatropha. The carcinogenic phorbol esters of the jatropha plant are found in biodiesel byproduct glycerine.

I was aware of the jatropha warning but have no knowledge that it has been found in USP glycerine in this country. Do you have any information about jatropha derivatives Glycerine contamination in the USA?.

 

[Traver]

My choice is to listen to what an actual USP expert says:

-The only actual labelling requirements that exist pertain only to samples sent to their lab for testing.

-Retail product labels can say whatever floats the manufacturer's boat, as long as they don't put "USP" on products that do not conform to the monograph.

That's true they can sell USP glycerine as food grade or industrial or whatever they want. However if they do use the USP monograph then it must be USP. I 'm with Royalgate on this one.

 

[Blueser]

I've been searching for days to dispel the myth of all the so-called USP pharma grade glycerin that is actually USP food grade. A few days ago I ran across the Dow Optim synthetic glycerin and requested a sample. I got an email from Dow saying they had received my request. Fingers crossed they'll send the sample.

 

[rolygate]

@MD_Boater
If you're talking about the precise meaning of a USP label (if it actually exists in law or only for samples sent for USP testing), then of course I have no idea personally. Qualified pharmacists tell us that a Glycerine, USP label means what it says at retail or for any other purpose. If you are saying that there is a disagreement on this point between qualified pharmacists and some staff in a USP testing facility, then that is different matter. We are hardly the right people to say what the exact situation is. All we can do is repeat what the pharmacists tell us: that a Glycerine, USP label refers to regulatory compliance and the status of a product. If pharmacists don't know what they are selling then we are hardly likely to be able to correct them.

You already know what my personal opinion is: unless you have seen a pharmaceutical license for inhalation for a product, then there can be absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the product is suitable for inhalation. Unfortunately that more or less applies to anything you can buy retail.

This is a failure of the FDA regulatory system since people should have clear information on what can be used safely for various purposes. If the FDA is supposed to be in charge of safe retail pharmacy products then they need to do a lot better. If I want to add some glycerine to a home inhalation of for example balsam for loosening up lung mucus after flu etc, then I should be able to select a product that has a license for inhalation. That information is not available at retail.


@Traver
You can find many links to jatropha contamination issues. I would regard any information as speculative at best - nobody knows. The FDA can't control the situation.

It's worse in other countries though.

 

[MD_Boater]

Roly,

I thought I was simply doing folks a favor giving by passing along answers that I was able to obtain about Glycerin USP from a friend, who is a chemist at USP headquarters. I am not going to argue with you over this. I'm sorry I contradicted you and the sticky in public. Please don't ban me.