Dimitri Goes Off on Rant About Dishonest Liquid Vendors

[Robert Cromwell]

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

A very good and reasonable piece of writing on the DA/AP issue. Thanks.

 

[caramel]

Oh, for sure. But there's literally no guidance you could give right now about what diacetyl's effect is likely to be.

As I wrote, about the most accurate thing you could say in addition to "contains diacetyl" is "this stuff has been shown to be nasty in one context, but we've no real idea how it affects you in this. Best avoided, if you can avoid it." << but that's not really guidance. Perhaps it's what needs to be on there, though.

And those 70 year olds who are not reading the guidance are likely exposed to risk - we don't want to follow that precedent.

Generally those 70 years old do not live in a void, they have family that may check their stuff for them too, etc. If the family gets involved into checking what grandpa is inhaling, they will soon find out what diacetyl is.

The problem is that we're working to completely destroy the role of the family and replace it with arbitrary regulations by innefective agencies.

 

[DC2]

Oh snap, SmokeyJoe got dinged!!

This message by SmokeyJoe has been removed from public view. Deleted by a moderator, A moment ago.

Methinks there is a moderator about to get fired.

 

[Oliver]

Great blog Oliver,

Curious what you think of this analysis :

DA_PD_monograph.pdf - Google Drive

OK, I've had a quick scan and it's very interesting.

The document suggests that DA/AP contained within e-liquid may be more harmful than diacetyl produced in cigarette smoke, as the aerosol is likely to carry it deeper into the lung.

Noting that I have no expertise whatsoever on this, I'll just say that it's adding to the body of evidence suggesting DA/AP should be avoided.

And thanks for sharing!

 

[Rossum]

And yet, as Dr. F's research showed, you still don't know whether there's diacetyl in there or not. Sadly, it doesn't have to be added for it to be there in low levels. Remember, 74% of all sweet flavors. So not just custards and creams

And this is the root of the issue. Is he having his flavor compounds tested by GC/MS set at the appropriate levels of detection that he can confidently say they're absent? Unlikely, but possible.

Agreed. I don't think he's having his flavors tested himself, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if he's using flavors from manufacturers that do test 'em. I doubt his aim is to banish all traces of diketones, but rather to avoid making juices that have really high levels of them.

That said, I may just send out samples of the two that I vape the most to find out for myself.

PS: Oh, and my point with the original post was: There are some vendors out there who are at least TRYING to do the right thing and their businesses are anything but hurting because of it.

 

[zoiDman]

Hi Zoidman, I think these are important points.

I was kinda staying away from the good faith/bad faith arguments because there's really no objective way to look at this.

However, it's this "informed decision" bit that concerns me. What is an "informed decision" when the science is so poor that individuals essentially have to guess what the effects of DA/AP are?

We, having these discussions, are pretty "plugged in" to the issue. But what of a 70 year old smoker who's buying some e-liquid and never ventures into the online or offline cultural community. What are they to make of "contains x% of diacetyl", for example?

Agreed.

The reason I broached the "Good Faith" thing is because I didn't want my views be taken as Retailers knew there were problems but sold e-Liquids anyway.

---

Informed Choice is an Extremely Difficult thing to Apply to a General Population the size of the Vaping Population. The ECF and Other Forum make up such Small Percentile of the Total amount of Vapers.

I would like to see Retailers make a Voluntary Disclosure if DA/AP is present in combined levels of more than 50ppm. And provide access to Information of what DA and AP are. Such as the Blog you recently made.

Would Everyone then be Informed. No. No they Wouldn't. But Policies that deal with the Public are Seldom about Reaching Every Individual. Because that is Usually Not Possible.

They are More about Reaching the Largest Possible Percentage of individuals.

 

[Oregon Linda]

Generally those 70 years old do not live in a void, they have family that may check their stuff for them too, etc. If the family gets involved into checking what grandpa is inhaling, they will soon find out what diacetyl is.

Don't you think all this talk about ignorant 70 year olds is a bit ageist? I'm by no means 70, but having known quite a few in that age group, I think you will find them much better educated and pay more attention to their health than a comparable group of 20 somethings. Just saying.

 

[zoiDman]

...

PS: Oh, and my point with the original post was: There are some vendors out there who are at least TRYING to do the right thing and their businesses are anything but hurting because of it.

I completely Agree.

I have seen Retailers who are Taking the Same Approach that the Owners of that B&M in you area is. Even if that means Not Offering certain Flavor Blends. Or Reformulating them to Reduce their DA/AP Levels.

Unfortunately, like many things in the News, these Retailers efforts are many times Over Shadowed by stories like the Could9/Five Pawns Train Wreck.

 

[Lessifer]

To me, I think a Fundamental Question needs to be Asked. Are there Alternative flavorings currently available which have Not been shown to have the Potential Risks that Flavorings which contain High Levels of DA/AP have?

I believe the answer to this question is Yes.

However, if you reword the question this way:
Are there Alternative flavorings currently available which have been shown to Not have the Potential Risks that Flavorings which contain High Levels of DA/AP have?
The answer is, unfortunately, No.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be made aware of potential risks, but at this point they are only "potential" risks, not confirmed ones. If allowed to continue to grow, the industry will be adding more and more items to that list of "potential" risks.

 

[Mr.Mann]

Caught that one before it gets the ax. LOL

 

[DC2]

I was tempted to "like" the posted picture above regarding Five Pawns "Hubris" flavor...
Because it's funny.

But after vaping for six years and only finding a handful of flavors that I really like...
And given that three of those are Five Pawns...

I have to say that I'm not really a dumb pretentious
So in the end, I could not like the post.



EDIT: Sorry, my post refers to a post about three above this one
EDIT: But it will be removed, for sure, so you may not understand what I'm saying
EDIT: C'est La Vie

 

[Mazinny]

I believe the answer to this question is Yes.

However, if you reword the question this way:
Are there Alternative flavorings currently available which have been shown to Not have the Potential Risks that Flavorings which contain High Levels of DA/AP have?
The answer is, unfortunately, No.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be made aware of potential risks, but at this point they are only "potential" risks, not confirmed ones. If allowed to continue to grow, the industry will be adding more and more items to that list of "potential" risks.

That's a slippery slope argument imo. Some issues should be discussed on their own merits, We can't look at issues solely from their the view point of possible effects on deeming regulation.

 

[Oliver]

Don't you think all this talk about ignorant 70 year olds is a bit ageist? I'm by no means 70, but having known quite a few in that age group, I think you will find them much better educated and pay more attention to their health than a comparable group of 20 somethings. Just saying.

I accept that. Apologies. I wasn't meaning to say that the 70 year old is ignorant, simply that this information is not widely available. Perhaps I assumed too much that they would be less likely to be "plugged in" to the cultural community that exists among vapers.

 

[caramel]

Don't you think all this talk about ignorant 70 year olds is a bit ageist? I'm by no means 70, but having known quite a few in that age group, I think you will find them much better educated and pay more attention to their health than a comparable group of 20 somethings. Just saying.

If you think it was ageist, I suggest you report the case to the moderators

But since you mentioned it, let's explore the age 16. I am sure that I can find 16 years old kids that, on short notice, can find more information, get better educated on ecigs, and sustain a more intelligent conversation on them than many Antz on the government's payroll. Yet it's the later who feel entitled to decide for the former, including their adult parents. How comes.

 

[Lessifer]

That's a slippery slope argument imo. Some issues should be discussed on their own merits, We can't look at issues solely from their the view point of possible effects on deeming regulation.

I actually wasn't attempting to make a slippery slope argument, or tying it into regulation at all. My point was that these are the concerns we are aware of today, and there will certainly be more concerns that we become aware of in the future if the industry is allowed to continue. As people like to point out, what we use is GRAS for food, not inhalation.

I believe that being aware of a potential risk should spur investigation and study. Caution is a good thing, too much can hurt an industry, too little can as well.

 

[caramel]

This is from a thread on Reddit by burnt_wick who I believe is the same person from the Click Bang! show. It's both on topic and really funny, here's the link to imgur:

It's so full of venom and outlandish claims that I could swear it was made by Dr. Antz himself.

 

[Mazinny]

I actually wasn't attempting to make a slippery slope argument, or tying it into regulation at all. My point was that these are the concerns we are aware of today, and there will certainly be more concerns that we become aware of in the future if the industry is allowed to continue. As people like to point out, what we use is GRAS for food, not inhalation.

I believe that being aware of a potential risk should spur investigation and study. Caution is a good thing, too much can hurt an industry, too little can as well.

Yes but because of the nature of the "potential risk" the sort of study that would be "conclusive proof" to everyone's satisfaction, would be unethical and will likely never get funded.

And my original response was not worded properly. The slippery slope i was referring to was your point that " if we start asking our vendors to remove AP/DA from the liquid when we don't have "conclusive proof", there are bound to be other concerns in the future when other flavoring molecules are found to be of concern as well. " my paraphrase.

 

[caramel]

I actually wasn't attempting to make a slippery slope argument, or tying it into regulation at all. My point was that these are the concerns we are aware of today, and there will certainly be more concerns that we become aware of in the future if the industry is allowed to continue. As people like to point out, what we use is GRAS for food, not inhalation.

I believe that being aware of a potential risk should spur investigation and study. Caution is a good thing, too much can hurt an industry, too little can as well.

If we were to take seriously the Antz "zero harm" standard, there would be no GRAS denomination, not even for any current food. Except for the magic government supplied Soylent Green.

 

[zoiDman]

I believe the answer to this question is Yes.

However, if you reword the question this way:
Are there Alternative flavorings currently available which have been shown to Not have the Potential Risks that Flavorings which contain High Levels of DA/AP have?
The answer is, unfortunately, No.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be made aware of potential risks, but at this point they are only "potential" risks, not confirmed ones. If allowed to continue to grow, the industry will be adding more and more items to that list of "potential" risks.

I think one thing that people should Consider when thing about Unknown Risks in Flavorings, is that when the Microscope came down on Microwave Popcorn workers with lung Problems, that DA and AP were Not the Only Chemicals that were Scrutinized.

The Entire Flavoring Industry came into Question.

I'm not saying that because Problems were Not Found with Other Flavors that problems Can Not Exist. Long Term Effects are hard to Predict in the Short Term.

But I do Feel that if there was something Glaring, like what was seen with DA and AP, that people like Dr. Hobbs would have a good Chance of catching a Statistically Significant correlation between some of the Non DA/AP flavorings.

 

[Lessifer]

Yes but because of the nature of the "potential risk" the sort of study that would be "conclusive proof" to everyone's satisfaction, would be unethical and will likely never get funded.

True, subjecting anyone in a clinical fashion to something that you believe is harmful is unethical. I don't think that will ever happen.

However, that doesn't mean that we can't know MORE than we know now. What can be studied is the relative amount of components present in liquid and aerosol, and I have to believe that at some point someone will be able to figure out what type of penetration the aerosol has compared to actual vapor and smoke, and of course there are the post studies, that can be done on people who have voluntarily exposed themselves. While not conclusive, they can be incredibly informative.