Cloud9vaping pulls Five Pawns and other liquids from the shelf after testing.

[zoiDman]

I thought that was covered, or at least implied in #3, and I assume you mean "shouldn't threaten"?

Yeah, all of that is aside from the fact that this particular manufacturer allegedly/apparently lied about what is in their liquid when asked directly by consumers.

Yep... If five pawns Hadn't told people that their e-liquids were Da and AP Free, None of this would have Happened. And It seemed like a Bold Move to Do So when they were Holding Lab Reports that Showed that their e-Liquids did.

I don't have a Problem with ANY OEM or Retailer that Makes No Claim about Da or AP. I just wouldn't buy from them.

 

[Pinggolfer]

I find it FAR MORE interesting how 5P had three lab reports dated:

5/27/14
10/6/14
10/27/14

ONE is over 1 year old!!!!!!! And only recently chose to release them to the public after the C9 post of their own lab reports. Did their position become dangerous one year later? I guess it was safe enough to sell their juices while they had them in stock. Sure, were not looking out for our customers for over the last year. So it's safe to assume that 5P is deceiving it's customers.

Respectfully, I fail to see any merit in your post!

Ahh where are the other trst results? If public why did c9 sign a contract with 5p

 

[Pinggolfer]

They didn't carry on selling, it was the results of their tests they didn't publish for 7 weeks. Stock was returned to fp

What date did c9 stop selling fp?

 

[Lessifer]

Yep... If Five Pawns Hadn't told people that their e-liquids were Da and AP Free, None of this would have Happened. And It seemed like a Bold Move to Do So when they were Holding Lab Reports that Showed that their e-Liquids did.

I don't have a Problem with ANY OEM or Retailer that Makes No Claim about Da or AP. I just wouldn't buy from them.

Yeah, there's a lot of bickering going on because there are actually separate issues at play here.

Are D/AP "safe" to use? There are differing opinions, not a lot of conclusive evidence either way, ATM a personal decision.

Should there be mandatory testing and disclosure? Good arguments on both sides, the current system of voluntary testing and disclosure has somewhat worked so far, but see next issue...

If someone makes the claim "Our liquids are diketone free" and they are shown not to be, by third party testing and/or their own testing, they have lied to their customers.

I don't really see why this is up for "debate" at all. Whether or not they feel D/AP are an actual health issue is irrelevant. If you know your product contains something, and you say it doesn't, you are lying.

 

[Mazinny]

I think I might be one of the vapers you're talking about but that's not quite how I feel on the subject.
Here are my personal views:
1. We need more knowledge about what is actually happening in our application, particle size, lung penetration, how much is transferred from liquid to aerosol.
2. If someone is concerned, they have valid reasons to be concerned, and should be able to make informed choices.
3. Vendors should state whether or not they know if their liquids contain diketones, if they know, they should publish their analyses.
4. If a consumer wants to eliminate diketones from their products, they should seek out vendors who have performed tests and publish them.
5. While this is an area of concern and deserves further investigation, it should not be blown out of proportion, and testing should not be mandatory.

Of course those are just my personal views, and who am I?

No i truly wasn't thinking of you when i said " some forum members " You are one of the few members who are on " the other side of this issue " if we can even call it that ( i agree with most of your enumerated points ) who doesn't deliberately confuse the issue. You put forth your arguments rationally ( although reservedly ). There are some members who i feel don't even believe what they are saying themselves. They use ad hominem attacks, slippery slope arguments, non-sequiturs , weasel words .... you name the fallacy, to "protect the industry" i suppose. Leads me to believe they are more concerned about vendors being besmirched than consumers being misled. They go on and on about the evils of government regulation, but have no interest in self-regulation either. Won't go as far as calling them shills but ...

 

[kates]

Ahh where are the other trst results? If public why did c9 sign a contract with 5p

Fp have only just published the 2014 results in response to c9. They hadn't forwarded results as promised so c9 did their own

 

[Mr.Mann]

Yeah, there's a lot of bickering going on because there are actually separate issues at play here.

Are D/AP "safe" to use? There are differing opinions, not a lot of conclusive evidence either way, ATM a personal decision.

Should there be mandatory testing and disclosure? Good arguments on both sides, the current system of voluntary testing and disclosure has somewhat worked so far, but see next issue...

If someone makes the claim "Our liquids are diketone free" and they are shown not to be, by third party testing and/or their own testing, they have lied to their customers.

I don't really see why this is up for "debate" at all. Whether or not they feel D/AP are an actual health issue is irrelevant. If you know your product contains something, and you say it doesn't, you are lying.

*Drops mic and walks away.*

After a post like that from @Lessifer, a thread should just be closed! LOL.

 

[kates]

What date did c9 stop selling fp?

Not sure can't check as at work. I would imagine as soon as they got the results.

 

[Thundernoggin]

Not sure can't check as at work. I would imagine as soon as they got the results.

That was already covered earlier in the thread and he knows that.

 

[SeniorBoy]

If public why did c9 sign a contract with 5p

Respectfully tapping my fingers and waiting. With respect to your declarative statement all I can say is PROVE IT! Show me the contract which you allege c9 signed. Every page please. I want to read it and learn exactly what the contents/provisions of this alleged contract contains. This concludes another specious argument but my offer still stands.

 

[Pinggolfer]

That was already covered earlier in the thread and he knows that.

And?

Respectfully tapping my fingers and waiting. With respect to your declarative statement all I can say is PROVE IT! Show me the contract which you allege c9 signed. Every page please. I want to read it and learn exactly what the contents/provisions of this alleged contract contains. This concludes another specious argument but my offer still stands.

What? What USA company would do business without a contract? I'm laughing.

 

[kates]

Whatever contract they signed wasn't enforced as 5p accepted stock back

 

[kates]

And?



What? What USA company would do business without a contract? I'm laughing.

Hopefully in writing

 

[zoiDman]

And?



What? What USA company would do business without a contract? I'm laughing.

What I think you are being Called Out on is your Lack of Knowledge as to the Term and Conditions of the Sales Contract between Cloud9 and Five Pawns.

 

[Mr.Mann]

Not in line with where the topic is, but I wanted to post this. I also have not read the entire thread. So sorry if this oddness was already covered...

Has anyone here seen this part of 5P's release? (Bolded by me):

"In the meantime, it’s important that consumers can enjoy the Five Pawns flavor experience with the highest level of confidence. Five Pawns does not feel there is any concern with diacetyl or AP in our e-liquids at current levels. AP can be an important flavor enhancer for flavor profiles that are creamy in nature, and is used widely in the food and beverage industries.

To satisfy any consumers who are looking for a line of e-liquids that are completely diacetyl and AP-free, this summer we are introducing a new PG-alternative line of vapor liquids that will deliver the same legendary flavor profiles that Five Pawns is known for, while offering an alternative to people with PG sensitivity. The new line of vapor liquids will also solve the flavor problem for those who have sacrificed taste in pursuit of greater vapor production."

Is it me, or does this statement seem to be conflating things? What does PG/VG have to do with DA/AP????? And before that, they say they feel there is no concern with DA/AP, but their new line of PG-free will be? Why if it is of no concern? Weird. Really weird. If I was them (thank gawd I am not), I would stop with all the bold claims and statements. PG-Free means what? Zero PG. No DA/AP means what? None! Not low levels that are of no concern to the manufacturer. Just strange that after all of this they would turn around and begin with new claims -- one of which was just the same as the old one.

 

[Pinggolfer]

What I think you are being Called Out on is your Lack of Knowledge as to the Term and Conditions of the Sales Contract between Cloud9 and Five Pawns.

Lack of knowledge? Kates must know since qualified as a c9 except. Maybe kates can explain why c9 sells the troublesome iStick 50, and fp is dangerous? Safety first.

 

[kates]

Not in line with where the topic is, but I wanted to post this. I also have not read the entire thread. So sorry if this oddness was already covered...

Has anyone here seen this part of 5P's release? (Bolded by me):

"In the meantime, it’s important that consumers can enjoy the Five Pawns flavor experience with the highest level of confidence. Five Pawns does not feel there is any concern with diacetyl or AP in our e-liquids at current levels. AP can be an important flavor enhancer for flavor profiles that are creamy in nature, and is used widely in the food and beverage industries.

To satisfy any consumers who are looking for a line of e-liquids that are completely diacetyl and AP-free, this summer we are introducing a new PG-alternative line of vapor liquids that will deliver the same legendary flavor profiles that Five Pawns is known for, while offering an alternative to people with PG sensitivity. The new line of vapor liquids will also solve the flavor problem for those who have sacrificed taste in pursuit of greater vapor production."

Is it me, or does this statement seem to be conflating things? What does PG/VG have to do with DA/AP????? And before that, they say they feel there is no concern with DA/AP, but their new line of PG-free will be? Why if it is of no concern? Weird. Really weird. If I was them (thank gawd I am not), I would stop with all the bold claims and statements. PG-Free means what? Zero PG. No DA/AP means what? None! Not low levels that are of no concern to the manufacturer. Just strange that after all of this they would turn around and begin with new claims -- one of which was just the same as the old one.

I think they are saying they are happy with their current high levels for those that don't mind but their new range will be D/AP free for those that do. I think they have a new sort of PG (which will be OK for PG sensitive people) which will be the base of the D/AP range.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I think they are saying they are happy with their current high levels for those that don't mind but their new range will be D/AP free for those that do. I think they have a new sort of PG (which will be OK for PG sensitive people) which will be the base of the D/AP range.

I get that, but they said to "to satisfy any customers who are looking for...diacetyl and AP-free...we are introducing a new PG-alternative line."

To me that almost implies a correlation.

And most notable: there was absolutely no mention of DA/AP-free in their previous long article about this new line. So is this a new development? Hmmm...makes you wonder. But if they had previously said they were releasing a new line "free of DA/AP" they would've also implied that their current one was not. And this was prior to the brouhaha (that older article was written in late April of this year) so I guess they wouldn't have done that without showing their cards, or more apropos, their next move. Looks like a "castle" to me. LOL

 

[zoiDman]

Lack of knowledge? Kates must know since qualified as a c9 except. Maybe kates can explain why c9 sells the troublesome iStick 50, and fp is dangerous? Safety first.

I was just Making an Observation.

BTW - I liked the shifting to questioning the Expertise of Another Member. And attempting to Discredit Cloud9 for their Sale of the iStick50 while all the time waving the "Five Pawns is the Victim here" flag was a Nice Touch also.

 

[mr.fabe]

Not in line with where the topic is, but I wanted to post this. I also have not read the entire thread. So sorry if this oddness was already covered...

Has anyone here seen this part of 5P's release? (Bolded by me):

"In the meantime, it’s important that consumers can enjoy the Five Pawns flavor experience with the highest level of confidence. Five Pawns does not feel there is any concern with diacetyl or AP in our e-liquids at current levels. AP can be an important flavor enhancer for flavor profiles that are creamy in nature, and is used widely in the food and beverage industries.

To satisfy any consumers who are looking for a line of e-liquids that are completely diacetyl and AP-free, this summer we are introducing a new PG-alternative line of vapor liquids that will deliver the same legendary flavor profiles that Five Pawns is known for, while offering an alternative to people with PG sensitivity. The new line of vapor liquids will also solve the flavor problem for those who have sacrificed taste in pursuit of greater vapor production."

Is it me, or does this statement seem to be conflating things? What does PG/VG have to do with DA/AP????? And before that, they say they feel there is no concern with DA/AP, but their new line of PG-free will be? Why if it is of no concern? Weird. Really weird. If I was them (thank gawd I am not), I would stop with all the bold claims and statements. PG-Free means what? Zero PG. No DA/AP means what? None! Not low levels that are of no concern to the manufacturer. Just strange that after all of this they would turn around and begin with new claims -- one of which was just the same as the old one.

This seems more reactive from a company who touts themselves as a leader in juice manufacturing. Companies who practice corporate responsibility are proactive in making changes before an issue comes to the forefront. If there would be any legitimate concerns for a consumers safety vs. profitability, changes would have taken place almost immediately rather than months later. The delays are merely to deplete a huge juice inventory and rake in the dollars previously spent on inventory. Juices are over priced with huge profit margins and this juicemaker is too greedy. Just my opinion.