I heard a saying once. Don't try fighting with a Jello Wall. No matter where you push it just pops back out somewhere else. And it's much more fun for the Jello Wall than it is for you.
Don't know why that thought came into my mind.
The Muffin Man and The Milk Man - Company's response to Diacetyl, Acetoin or Acetyl Propionyl
- Thread starter emolinare
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I heard a saying once. Don't try fighting with a Jello Wall. No matter where you push it just pops back out somewhere else. And it's much more fun for the Jello Wall than it is for you.
Don't know why that thought came into my mind.
Their statement is simply "Puffing" and would not be actionable. Most semi intelligent people can see there is no real assurance there nor is there any guarantee, its just opinion used to sell. People in sales use puffery all the time. If you have ever sold a used car or well basically anything I can almost guarantee you used some puffing whether you admit it or know it yourself. "I can assure you it runs great for me", "I have never had problems with it", "It always got me from point A to B". It is a broad statement that is basically true. Can you name the proven harmful chemical in their juice? I am not a big fan of puffing but I would be blind to think it is not used in almost all sales. The choice to buy from any vender is still mine, so if I don't like their statement I move on to find one that I do like. And BTW I have received similar worded replies from many reputable juice companies. It took me a while until I finally settled on two e-liquid companies. One is just recently transparent and is totally on board with disclosure and the other is still saying they are working on this area. At this point in time we just do not know enough about these chemicals. Even Dr. F says that he is not concerned about low levels (referred to as contaminants), but we are now seeing that steeping may effect the levels. So unless a company guarantees absence of or certain levels of a specific chemical, they have not lied and do not deserve to be publicly dragged through the mud or accused of misrepresentation or fraud.
I have written or spoken with many vendors regarding this issue, and not one of them gave me any " assurances " of any kind when it comes to the safety of their liquid, let alone going as far as " assuring " their liquid does not contain " any harmful chemicals " or puffing as you call it. Whether it's 'actionable' or not is for a court of law to decide, not me. I classify the reply as grossly irresponsible, not 'actionable'.
As for the rest of your post, i don't have a great deal of interest on the choices you make, entirely up to you.
If done publicly (without their knowledge) before we know more detail? Harangued might be too strong a word, but it certainly is using unnecessary strong armed tactics for something that does not have clear definition yet.
Clark is great, but he was not strong armed into doing this. It was HIS choice for HIS company.
So basically it stands here at we don't have the right to know what is in our eliquids, we don't have the right to demand anything from vendors and can politely ask vendors for info but not tell anyone what is said and any proof that some ingredients currently in eliquids are harmful that is out there should be ignored...
I would agree that the statement is overly broad and a vendor isn't really smart to make such a statement.
That is a nice CYA statement. But vendors should not be making any statements about safety at all because none of them have tested every compound they sell for safety. I would prefer that they say something like "We make no claims on safety and use of these products is at the risk and discretion of the end user." This is the unspoken disclaimer I keep in mind when I consider any juice.
Last edited:
I wouldn't put it that way. You have a right to demand disclosure; vendors have a right to refuse. Vendors should not make safety claims because those claims are actionable. You (in the general sense) should not claim any vendors products are harmful for the same reason.
I have no problem with threads and other public forums where a group demands disclosure. I have a problem when non-disclosing vendors are cast in a light that implies they are putting out harmful products. The fact is that no one is engaging in full disclosure, only disclosure of a class of chemicals that some are afraid of. The absence of these chemicals says nothing at all about the safety of any other chemicals.
Put it this way: how much documented harm has been demonstrated in vaping diketones as compared to any other chemical in e liquid? Zero. Thus, all chemicals in e liquid have the same potential for harm which is currently unknown.
The whole point of my reply was to explain that the statement is not an actual assurance of anything real because it was too vague. The word "Puffing" is not my word but an actual legal term. You have made it clear, however, that my opinion does not interest you. That's fine. I will leave you to only look at views that align with your own.
So tell me this, your not in the least bit worried about the substitute eters there using to be harmful ?
I've seen this mentioned quite a bit recently, but haven't been able to figure out where it came from.
Somewhere I read that pure acetoin could produce trace quantities of diacetyl. However they reckoned that this process would stop completely in mixed juice.
That's all I've seen on the subject.
I am well aware that 'puffing' is a term used in case law. I have studied those cases. Whether that specific statement is 'puffing' and thus not 'actionable' , is a question of law, not a question of fact per se. Depends on the industry, context etc... As you saw three different people came to different conclusions on this page alone. You thought it was not actionable, Puddinman thought it was, and i was not sure. My issue with the statement was that it is grossly irresponsible, not to mention monumentally dumb. I made no statement at all as to whether it's actionable.
If i implied that i have no interest in your opinion, i apologize profusely. That was not my intent, What i meant to say ( crudely, i admit and perhaps inspired by your 'semi-intelligent" comment ) was that your choices are yours and your alone and it would be extremely arrogant and uncalled for on my part, if i decided to influence you in those choices by fear mongering etc... and while it's true that i don't have a great deal of interest in your choices, it could be said of most people not you specifically .... unless you are a family member or a close friend.
Last edited:
That is why I phrased it that way because I do not have any links to provide just what I have seen as well. I believe it came up frequently in the cloud9/5P drama. I mentioned it because it tells me that there are still too many questions out there about how these chemicals and other unknown ones play in what we vape. I am not a chemist so all I can do is try to stay up on the latest and make the best educated guess I can as to what information to trust.
.we're talking 2010 here!:
Ask your favorite suppliers to remove diacetyl from their e-liquids! | Page 34 | E-Cigarette Forum
2010 is almost ancient history in ecig land terms.
...and here we are 5 years later and the ecig industry has shown how much they care about the end consumer by taking their concerns seriously while making wonderful strides in self regulation and disclosure to this end...
Yes, we could write paragraphs explaining the specific fallacies ( straw man, shifting the goal post, excluded middle etc... ) employed, but ths 'saying' says it a lot more succinctly !
I do agree it is a very careless statement designed with only sales in mind. It is no doubt slick, but calling it a lie (not saying you did) is up for interpretation as well. I am not in law so I do not know if a savvy lawyer could make it seem as though there was an actual guarantee there. The beginning word "No" could be seen is saying that they are in fact saying there is none of the asked chemicals present in their juice. The fact that they ended by saying "when inhaled" could be a sticky point as well since the approved ingredients are not approved for inhalation, but I still saw this as puffing and would not have taken it as an actual assurance. I should have used the word "probably" not actionable. For the record I would have steered clear of any vender with this response, but I would not have felt the need to call them out publicly.
You do not need to apologize. I understand what you meant. I must be confused as to the point of a forum. I thought it was to post views and experiences so that people could see there was a myriad of opinions and ways to skin a cat, take it all in, then make your own assessment based on what works for them. I usually try to be very careful of the words I choose so as not to offend, force or attack. I didn't know that by stating an opinion or relating an experience was using fear mongering to influence another. I will be more careful and watchful for those trying to influence me in the future. Thanks for the heads up.
I do agree it is a very careless statement designed with only sales in mind. It is no doubt slick, but calling it a lie (not saying you did) is up for interpretation as well. I am not in law so I do not know if a savvy lawyer could make it seem as though there was an actual guarantee there. The beginning word "No" could be seen is saying that they are in fact saying there is none of the asked chemicals present in their juice. The fact that they ended by saying "when inhaled" could be a sticky point as well since the approved ingredients are not approved for inhalation, but I still saw this as puffing and would not have taken it as an actual assurance. I should have used the word "probably" not actionable. For the record I would have steered clear of any vender with this response, but I would not have felt the need to call them out publicly.
You do not need to apologize. I understand what you meant. I must be confused as to the point of a forum. I thought it was to post views and experiences so that people could see there was a myriad of opinions and ways to skin a cat, take it all in, then make your own assessment based on what works for them. I usually try to be very careful of the words I choose so as not to offend, force or attack. I didn't know that by stating an opinion or relating an experience was using fear mongering to influence another. I will be more careful and watchful for those trying to influence me in the future. Thanks for the heads up.
I used the term 'fear mongering' not because i think that's what is going on, it's because the two or three people i feel are trying to stifle the discussion on the diketone topic, tend to accuse the other side of using these tactics. Terms like ' inducing panic' and ' causing hysteria ' etc ... is usually used ( inaccurately imo ) by the two or three people who act as " hall monitors " whenever threads like these pop up, in their justification for stifling debate.
As careful as you are in choosing your words, you still couldn't resist using a term like less than ' semi-intelligent' to describe people who might rely on the specific statement. And as fair-minded as i am sure you are, you still re-stated my ( unwise ) statement about not " particularly caring as to what choices you make " to " not caring about your opinion ".
Yes, words are important.
edit : I do agree that the op overstated the case against diketones in his email to the vendor, but imo it is not a reason to accuse him of being on a ' witch-hunt ' or ' tempest in a tea pot ' or incorrectly and unreasonably implying that he does not use or intend to use this vendors product. Especially since he is a new ECF member and a new vaper.
p.s. regardless of the potential harm of these substances, what seems to be lost is that in addition to the op, Muffin Man himself used the term " these harmful chemicals " .
Last edited:
I am not trying to harsh you but,what you sayyour concerns are could be said to be the
case more or less for either side of the
argument.
just saying.
peace.
mike
If vaping DA/AP is proven to cause lung disease for some proportion of vapers (no matter how small), then vaping e-juice with these components is a risk of lung disease.
If vaping DA/AP has never caused a case of lung disease but someone thinks DA/AP might be bad in our vapor as we use it (but without testing), then vaping e-juice with these components is a potential risk of lung disease.
I think, with the data we have so far, potential risk is the correct term. As in, it might not be a risk at all.
If vaping DA/AP has never caused a case of lung disease but someone thinks DA/AP might be bad in our vapor as we use it (but without testing), then vaping e-juice with these components is a potential risk of lung disease.
I think, with the data we have so far, potential risk is the correct term. As in, it might not be a risk at all.
Last edited:
- Status
