Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study

[Jman8]

I think if Zeller said the same thing you just did, he'd be torn apart in vaping community. I don't see how what you are saying won't price out many vendors if everyone in the room is agreeing that minor tweaks are necessary (a win) even if it hurts (financially).



------------------
Jman I'm sorry, I accidentally deleted most of your post trying to quote-reply to it
Can't get it back I'm afraid
Really sorry about that
-Roly

 

[aubergine]

In the case of popcorn lung I'm sure they knew about those flavorings, but it was determined to be more economically advantageous to pay litigation and fines.

Or they knew that since neither long-term cigarette smoking nor vaping have produced a single case of popcorn lung, there's unlikely to be anything to sue about.

I've been concerned about diacetyl for a long time. I wasn't clear on what quantity we might be talking about in products made by small vendors. I'm less concerned now. I'd like a qualified person to weigh in on the likelihood that diacetyl could have a different outcome in e-liquid than in cigarettes. Whatever horrible harms cigarettes may cause, popcorn lung isn't among them. If anyone knows of any other documented ill effects from diacetyl I'd like to hear about that as well.

 

[rolygate]

And the closer we can get to accomplishing that the closer we get to ensuring more product availability and differentiation available to vapers w/out having to move to a black market, is that what you are saying?

The current regulations just set by the EU, and the proposals put forward by the FDA, if they survive legal challenge, and if implemented to the full, will mean that vaping as we know it comes to an end by around summer 2017. Most products will have to go black market since near enough everything will be illegal except minis sold by multi-million dollar enterprises that can afford the huge fees proposed.

Right now we don't know how it will play out though. Maybe a miracle will happen.

 

[aubergine]

rolygate:
I think science is science, or should be, and therefore who it benefits is not a factor.

I wish I could "like" this 1,000 times.

Agreed, despite some differences with rolygate on this one. My like button seems to be broken.

 

[rolygate]

I think if Zeller said the same thing you just did, he'd be torn apart in vaping community. I don't see how what you are saying won't price out many vendors if everyone in the room is agreeing that minor tweaks are necessary (a win) even if it hurts (financially).

And I don't care about any of that. If I want to buy a high-quality refill that has no obvious contaminants, then it matters to me if 3 out of 4 vendors are lying to me when they say their products are clean.

Others may have different priorities and that's fine. To me, a vendor who lies to me is no better than the corrupt politicians and government agency staff who are trying to bury ecigs.

Removing known poisons from my refills, and not lying about the ingredients, is not 'a minor tweak' to me. I appreciate that others' priorities are different; it's simply that if I want to buy something that isn't poison then I'd like the truth. The contract is: I pay for a product that the vendor assures is contaminant-free. By lying about it they break that contract. Others may not care, and that is their preference and fine by me. If I am paying for a quality product then I have a right to be given what I paid for, not lied to.

 

[rolygate]

It's kind of like this: if I want to buy a refill with no radioactive polonium in, then when I pay top dollar for a refill and the vendor assures me it's polonium-free, then what I expect is to receive a refill that has no polonium.

Whether or not the amount of polonium is going to make me ill or not is beside the point. I didn't pay to have an argument about that, and anyway nobody knows the hard facts. I just paid to have it poison-free and that is what the vendor is lying about. End of story.

 

[Jman8]

And I don't care about any of that. If I want to buy a high-quality refill that has no obvious contaminants, then it matters to me if 3 out of 4 vendors are lying to me when they say their products are clean.

Others may have different priorities and that's fine. To me, a vendor who lies to me is no better than the corrupt politicians and government agency staff who are trying to bury ecigs.

Removing known poisons from my refills, and not lying about the ingredients, is not 'a minor tweak' to me.

I say minor tweak because the idea of sweet flavors having these (in 75% of all products) is to me, a given for vaping. To the degree it isn't, I think whatever it is replaced with, will have issues. I also think if it is very small issue compared to smoking, then it is a minor tweak.

But I recognize that for those coming from "good of public health" position, it won't be treated as minor tweak, and instead treated as mandatory for all vendors. Hence, why expensive juice won't be hard to justify down the road, when you realize the inevitable changes that must be present to answer all possible concerns.

The contract is: I pay for a product that the vendor assures is contaminant-free. By lying about it they break that contract. Others may not care, and that is their preference and fine by me. If I am paying for a quality product then I have a right to be given what I paid for, not lied to.

And I see this as similar to the nicotine-free liquids out there that were found to not be exactly (precisely) nic-free. So, were those vendors intentionally lying?

To me, what you are saying will win, but at a cost that is on par with what FDA is publicly saying it is after.

 

[Mowgli]

And I don't care about any of that. If I want to buy a high-quality refill that has no obvious contaminants, then it matters to me if 3 out of 4 vendors are lying to me when they say their products are clean.

Others may have different priorities and that's fine. To me, a vendor who lies to me is no better than the corrupt politicians and government agency staff who are trying to bury ecigs.

Removing known poisons from my refills, and not lying about the ingredients, is not 'a minor tweak' to me. I appreciate that others' priorities are different; it's simply that if I want to buy something that isn't poison then I'd like the truth. The contract is: I pay for a product that the vendor assures is contaminant-free. By lying about it they break that contract. Others may not care, and that is their preference and fine by me. If I am paying for a quality product then I have a right to be given what I paid for, not lied to.

I think that poster .pdf they released only shows the highlights of what'll be reported in the journal.
I'd guess that they won't report specific juices by specific vendors but it'll have considerably more detailed info.
I suspect the Dr. will alert manufacturers to tell them what specific juices contain what amounts.
I hope the vendors will do something about it at that time.
Whether they report the level that the study found each specific juice or only which are totally diketone-free is up to them.

The amounts shown in the study report averages.
Some might be considerably less and some could have hazardous levels.

Like you, I expect to get what is advertised. I believe in total transparency (without giving away detailed recipes).
I'll decide what level is acceptable risk for me, not the FDA or Glantz's minions.
I can only make rational informed choices if I have real information to evaluate.

I think what would be fair is manufacturers are alerted to the amounts found, given a month or so to adjust their juice and/or flavoring (or not) and report changes on their websites, then the Dr. releases the study's detailed results.

or something..

 

[Mr.Mann]

I think that billboard pdf they released only shows the highlights of what'll be reported in the journal.
I'd guess that they won't report specific juices by specific vendors but it'll have considerably more detailed info.
I suspect the Dr. will alert manufacturers to tell them what specific juices contain what amounts.
I hope the vendors will do something about it at that time.
Whether they report the level that the study found each specific juice or only which are totally diketone-free is up to them.

The amounts shown in the study report averages.
Some might be considerably less and some could have hazardous levels.

Like you, I expect to get what is advertised. I believe in total transparency (without giving away detailed recipes).
I'll decide what level is acceptable risk for me, not the FDA or Glantz's minions.
I can only make rational informed choices if I have real information to evaluate.

I think what would be fair is manufacturers are alerted to the amounts found, given a month or so to adjust their juice and/or flavoring (or not) and report changes on their websites, then the Dr. releases the study's detailed results.

or something..

I don't know. In the previous study about the cytotoxicity of certain liquids they listed the liquids by name along with the vendors.

 

[rolygate]

To me, what you are saying will win, but at a cost that is on par with what FDA is publicly saying it is after.

Maybe you're right. I don't feel like arguing any more.

 

[Racehorse]

I expect to get what is advertised. I believe in total transparency (without giving away detailed recipes).
I'll decide what level is acceptable risk for me

Thanks for staying "on topic", Mowgli.

*Real* science doesn't seek to politicize, bash or "out" certain vendors, get revenge on opponents, and/or determine who benefits or doesn't benefit from the outcome...... (so whatever need there is to do those things should be taken to another topic, IMHO.)


What this topic is about is that a very ethical doctor/researcher wanted to address, exactly what you quoted:

Dr F: "We believe this study was of crucial importance because we have detected an important but avoidable problem in e-cigarette liquids."

It is a consumer issue, and many here did seem to understand the purpose for the study:

We'd most all prefer to think that consumer regulation and manufacturer's scruples would triumph, toward voluntary disclosure and efforts to be informed of product content

when a product is sold and advertised as "containing no diacetyl or diacetyl substitutes," it better be that way.

Nobody is asking for regulation. Just asking for *disclosure*.

If I am paying for a quality product then I have a right to be given what I paid for, not lied to.

I believe in freedom of choice. If there are consumers who do not wish to assume certain inhalation risks---- however infinitesimal---- they have every right to know if their eliquid contains certain substances, when making inquiries and purchases.

Farsalinos makes it quite clear that 3 out of 4 flavors contain these contaminants, and all vendors say there is no contamination.

That a consumer should get what they think they are paying for is not really arguable----is it?


Dr. F. defined a goal and accomplished that goal. He is a scientist, and the outcome yielded a scientific result.

I think if Zeller said the same thing you just did, he'd be torn apart in vaping community.

All substances, including air, have inhalation risks.

^^^^^
Political grandstanding, logic-twisting, defining acceptable levels of A and B, etc. has nothing to do with the reason or outcome for the study (unless somebody wants to put words in Dr. F's mouth) and should all be in separate topics so as not to turn this one into off-topic

JMHO

 

[KFarsalinos]

Bronchiolitis obliterans is not caused by smoking, you are right. But why? Because smoking exposes the lung to a large variety of different toxins, which all together cause another kind of disease: COPD.
The incidence of COPD in smokers is up to 15%. The incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans by diacetyl exposure is extremely low. In fact, only few cases have ever being documented. Most commonly, diacetyl exposure causes a decline in lung function which can be detected by a reduction in FEV1. This is much more common that development of bronchiolitis obliterans. However, this can be easily misdiagnosed as COPD.
Therefore, we absolutely disagree with the conclusions by Pierce et al.

 

[KFarsalinos]

I would like to add another thing. I don't believe the e-cig vendors were lying when they mentioned that no diacetyl was present in their liquidds. They just didn't know. Why? Because they were re-assured by a discussion over the phone or by emails exchange with flavoring suppliers that the flavorings do not contain diacetyl. They never asked for any proof for that (which means, analytical testing with proper limits of detection). Of course, this is not an excuse, they should have shown a more professional behavior. However, i cannot accuse them as liers...

 

[Mr.Mann]

Bronchiolitis obliterans is not caused by smoking, you are right. But why? Because smoking exposes the lung to a large variety of different toxins, which all together cause another kind of disease: COPD.
The incidence of COPD in smokers is up to 15%. The incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans by diacetyl exposure is extremely low. In fact, only few cases have ever being documented. Most commonly, diacetyl exposure causes a decline in lung function which can be detected by a reduction in FEV1. This is much more common that development of bronchiolitis obliterans. However, this can be easily misdiagnosed as COPD.
Therefore, we absolutely disagree with the conclusions by Pierce et al.

Thanks. I saw that study, but didn't necessarily "believe" the implications. I feel that study lead too many to believe that repeated direct-inhalation of diacetyl (and similar compounds), is not a thing to worry about since it may not, in and of itself, cause bronchiolitis obliterans.

 

[KFarsalinos]

Finally (sorry for the back to back posts), i think the goals of our study were perfectly met.
We identified an unecessary hazard in e-cigarettes, which represents an avoidable risk. We are providing a realistic and easily implemented solution, which is proper testing at relevant limits of detection. We emphasize the fact that none should trust any verbal or personal reassurance that diacetyl is not present in the flavorings. Only proper testing and publication of the result can provide true and trustful information. Testing is not cost-prohibitive, and will make the e-cigarette liquids even safer than they currently are. I think the industry has a perfect opportunity to show responsibility and a good face. The vapers need it, and the regulators must see it. I am sure they will respond in an appropriate and responsible way...
I believe this study (and any study like this) is a step forward into better understanding what we need to do in order to ensure the quality of e-cigarettes....

 

[Mr.Mann]

I would like to add another thing. I don't believe the e-cig vendors were lying when they mentioned that no diacetyl was present in their liquidds. They just didn't know. Why? Because they were re-assured by a discussion over the phone or by emails exchange with flavoring suppliers that the flavorings do not contain diacetyl. They never asked for any proof for that (which means, analytical testing with proper limits of detection). Of course, this is not an excuse, they should have shown a more professional behavior. However, i cannot accuse them as liers...

However, what about in the situations -- that occur all the time -- where a vendor will say "we don't use diacetyl," but they do in fact, knowingly, use acetoin and acetyl propionyl? Is this a case of stretching the truth, or telling half-truths, or what? Again, this is when the vendors know but focus their disclaimers on "no diacetyl." I know this is a problem because when I ask vendors, "do you use acetoin and acetyl propionyl?", I often times get "we don't use diacetyl!" Hilarious.

 

[KFarsalinos]

First of all, acetyl propionyl is not any better than diacetyl (although there are fewer studies verifying this). In my opinion, acetyl propionyl should NOT be used.
Acetoin would be fine, as long as it is not contaminated with diacetyl!
One of the conclusions of our study is that you should not trust any statements, but only the official results of testing. I cannot express it any simpler than that...
As mentioned, the median values were much lower than cigarettes and only 2 times higher than safety limits. However, as you can understand there were samples with some extreme levels. We mention in the paper submitted for publication. 15% of the samples had >10 times higher levels of diacetyl that current safety limits, and a further 10% had >100 times higher diacetyl levels than the current safety limits.

 

[Mr.Mann]

First of all, acetyl propionyl is not any better than diacetyl (although there are fewer studies verifying this). In my opinion, acetyl propionyl should NOT be used.
Acetoin would be fine, as long as it is not contaminated with diacetyl!
One of the conclusions of our study is that you should not trust any statements, but only the official results of testing. I cannot express it any simpler than that...
As mentioned, the median values were much lower than cigarettes and only 2 times higher than safety limits. However, as you can understand there were samples with some extreme levels. We mention in the paper submitted for publication. 15% of the samples had >10 times higher levels of diacetyl that current safety limits, and a further 10% had >100 times higher diacetyl levels than the current safety limits.

The BIG QUESTION: will we be able to see which liquids those are? Like in the cytotoxicity study?

And know that I appreciate what you are doing. I didn't donate a lot, but I offered what I could. Thank you.

 

[Mowgli]

Dr. F. - Have you shared your exact results with the offending vendors?

 

[KFarsalinos]

There is no reason to mention the names. We took samples from 36 manufacturers (and 7 countries), while there are thousands in the market. Mentioning the names will only result in targeting those who were chosen by us, while the rest will just reassure everyone that everything is ok (without doing any testing of course). Our goal is for the industry to respond and solve the problem as a whole...