A new study verifies the lower risk-potential of e-cigarettes but identifies an avoidable risk

[AgentAnia]

From Dr. Farsalinos: A new study verifies the lower risk-potential of e-cigarettes but identifies an avoidable risk His report, as always, presents his findings with the right perspective.

My take:

The good news: Diacetyl is identified in several eliquid formulations*. Industry will take note and correct their recipes.

The bad news: Diacetyl is identified in several eliquid formulations. ANTZ will run with this as another reason to ban ecigs.

*Though mostly at lower-than-dangerous levels.

 

[Augmented Dog]

Good info. Thanks!

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

It's back in the flavoring and e-liquid manufactures ballpark, how they react to this study will affect the regulations that are coming.

 

[Kent C]

Some questions.

Are the sample from manufacturers or vendors? I know it says manufacturers but if so, how was that established? Was it a random selection from manufacturers or vendors? Why were only sweet flavors picked? If it was because they were testing for DA/AP did they focus on buttery, custard type sweet flavors only? Did any of the manufacturers flavors have AEMSA or ECITA 'approval'?

Since the ANTZ spin will be worst case scenario, the percentages will likely be reported for All flavors and All manufactures in the headlines with the details ambiguously confusing in the text. This is 'ammo' for the no flavoring crowd. And as with the recently posted rework of the 2011 popcorn lung incident, any and all lung problems will be connected, by ANTZ, referring back to that incident.... Not saying the testing shouldn't have been done, it should.....just what the likely results of it will be. CASAA should be working on a response or already have one.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Once again the ANTZ will compare it to absolute safety, which doesn't exist, instead of smoking tobacco products.

 

[Kent C]

Once again the ANTZ will compare it to absolute safety, which doesn't exist, instead of smoking tobacco products.

lick one's chops - Wiktionary

 

[Stubby]

Some questions.

Are the sample from manufacturers or vendors? I know it says manufacturers but if so, how was that established? Was it a random selection from manufacturers or vendors? Why were only sweet flavors picked? If it was because they were testing for DA/AP did they focus on buttery, custard type sweet flavors only? Did any of the manufacturers flavors have AEMSA or ECITA 'approval'?

It states clearly in the article why sweet flavors where chosen

"It is important to emphasise that only sweet flavours were selected in this study because these are most probable to contain these chemicals. Thus, it is expected that the overall prevalence of dactyl and acetyl propionyl in all flavour-types is lower."

 

[Kent C]

It states clearly in the article why sweet flavors where chosen

"It is important to emphasise that only sweet flavours were selected in this study because these are most probable to contain these chemicals. Thus, it is expected that the overall prevalence of dactyl and acetyl propionyl in all flavour-types is lower."

Ok, but DA is a buttery flavor. Butter isn't sweet (I know of 'sweet butter' but even that isn't sweet like some flavors). Buttered popcorn isn't sweet. I know that it could be uses in the way that msg is used, as a flavor enhancer but then it could be used for any flavor. I just think 'sweet flavors' is too much of a generality even though some sweet flavors may contain it, even though 'sweet' isn't a property of those particular chemicals.

As far as 'Thus, it is expected that the overall prevalence of dactyl and acetyl propionyl in all flavour-types is lower'.... there may have been some effort at finding how much lower that is, rather than just 'expecting'. That way it would have been less ammo for the ANTZ spin, or give a more accurate percentage of the whole.

 

[SmokinRabbit]

I would also like to know if they found Diacetyl in the juice of companies claiming not to use it. This is part of the problem with lack of regulation... no assurances of consistency of ingredients. Vendors could easily just put "contains no Diacetyl" on their website, without ever having to prove it's true.

 

[Kent C]

I would also like to know if they found Diacetyl in the juice of companies claiming not to use it. This is part of the problem with lack of regulation... no assurances of consistency of ingredients. Vendors could easily just put "contains no Diacetyl" on their website, without ever having to prove it's true.

If, as some people have predicted - that the FDA deeming will result in effectively banning 99.9% of ecigarettes - you won't have to worry about any lack of regulation or those lying vendors. As more negative stories are generated, the probability of that prediction becoming true, rises.

 

[DrMA]

Some fruit flavors (particularly natural extracts) contain naturally-occurring diacetyl and/or acetyl propionyl; this is not only about butter flavors.

I don't even want to imagine what the ANTZ terrorist network will do with this study. We already know they lie and twist research studies even when they are favorable to vaping and this one actually shows some quantifiable risk, albeit minimal and avoidable...

 

[Kent C]

Some fruit flavors (particularly natural extracts) contain naturally-occurring diacetyl and/or acetyl propionyl; this is not only about butter flavors.

I don't even want to imagine what the ANTZ terrorist network will do with this study. We already know they lie and twist research studies even when they are favorable to vaping and this one actually shows some quantifiable risk, albeit minimal and avoidable...

Very low concentrations in some fruit, honey and dairy and especially if there's fermentation - breaking down of glucose.... yes. And yeah... on the predictable ANTZ. I have three flavors that I'd consider sweet. None contain DA or AP by the testing results from outside labs that were included in my bulk purchase and had ECITA validation.

 

[dragonpuff]

I would also like to know if they found Diacetyl in the juice of companies claiming not to use it. This is part of the problem with lack of regulation... no assurances of consistency of ingredients. Vendors could easily just put "contains no Diacetyl" on their website, without ever having to prove it's true.

What I would like to see is all liquid manufacturers be able to certify with an organization that can prove their ingredients are tested and safe (like AEMSA or ECITA). Then each vendor can post on their website that their liquid is verified by this organization, and we can doublecheck on that organization's website that the vendor and manufacturer are supported by them. Kind of like if I tell you I have a college degree that means nothing, but if I tell you what degree I have and where I got it from, you can verify with the university that I do in fact have that degree.

This way, we can have our own set of industry regulations without relying on the ineffectual government to do so. For the government to impose proper regulations they would have to actually understand the industry they're regulating, and have the industry and consumer's best interest at heart. They do neither, so I propose independent industry regulation is the best solution. And I do see us moving swiftly in that direction.

If regulations like this are in place or will be shortly, please inform us I feel something like that should be universal knowledge in our community, but it is not. I agree with smokinrabbit that I would like to be able to verify claims vendors make on their website.

Edit: ECITA verifies the e-liquid of its members:
http://www.ecita.org.uk/theise.html

AEMSA does this as well, but the member lists of each organization are rather short compared to the size of the industry

 

[Kent C]

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-dr-farsalinos-new-study-25.html#post13712020

 

[rolygate]

I would also like to know if they found Diacetyl in the juice of companies claiming not to use it. This is part of the problem with lack of regulation... no assurances of consistency of ingredients. Vendors could easily just put "contains no Diacetyl" on their website, without ever having to prove it's true.

Yes - and this is one of the core issues.

Around 7 out of 10 flavours tested contained diacetyl or acetyl propionyl (believed by Dr F to be equally problematic). All of the suppliers claimed their products were diacetyl-free.

It is clear from this that some flavours were indeed diacetyl-free as claimed; but instead they contained a flavouring that may be equally harmful.

It has been suggested that similar flavours such as acetoin or even butyric acid (maybe an acetoin-butyric acid combo perhaps) can be safely used instead, with about the same flavour result.

It can probably be assumed now that diacetyl is being used everywhere as a flavour enhancer, much as MSG is in food: it's used to 'boost' any/all sweet flavours rather than simply being used as a butter/custard/creamy flavour alone. It's going to be found in most sweet / dairy / bakery flavours.

7 out of 10 vendors are incorrect when they say their sweet/dairy refill liquids are free of known toxic adulterants. Testing is clearly too expensive at about $200 per sample.

 

[dragonpuff]

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-dr-farsalinos-new-study-25.html#post13712020

I agree with what you said here, but the reality is that the industry is not there yet. The vast majority of e-liquid retailers are either not registered with an organization like ECITA or AEMSA or do not mention any independent testing on their website. If I, as a consumer, required diacetyl-free liquid, I would have a difficult time finding vendors who could guarantee this, and limiting my choices so severely may lead me to not having access to the liquid I want in this way. For instance, I need to be able to buy liquid that is higher in PG than VG and has strong flavors, among other things. What if none of the vendors who can verify that their liquid is diacetyl-free meet my other requirements as a consumer? Am I SOL then?

And of course, this is not counting all of the other chemicals I may want my liquid to be free of (acetyl propionyl, etc.).

I agree with the checks and balances of the free market system that we have in place in this industry. But the checks and balances you propose of bringing fraud charges against those who claim their liquid to be diacetyl free when it is not is tough to wrap my head around, because we are talking about thousands of business who sell liquid and flavors they haven't tested, and the number claiming to be diacetyl free is not small. Should we bring charges against them all? How can we even go about doing so? It's a daunting prospect just to think about weeding them all out. And again, it is further complicated by the addition of other chemicals we may want our liquid to be free of.

I am not suggesting by any means that we need government regulation; again, as long as they lack understanding of the industry and fail to work for consumers, they should have no place in this. What I am suggesting is a tightening of industry standards. We should be encouraging all vendors to register with AESMA, ECITA, or another organization that will help them with regular testing, or if they do individual testing that the results be verified by an independent third party and published. Or perhaps we could insist that sources of flavors have all of their products tested, and that vendors/manufacturers verify where they order their flavorings from.

 

[Kent C]

I agree with what you said here, but the reality is that the industry is not there yet. The vast majority of e-liquid retailers are either not registered with an organization like ECITA or AEMSA or do not mention any independent testing on their website. If I, as a consumer, required diacetyl-free liquid, I would have a difficult time finding vendors who could guarantee this, and limiting my choices so severely may lead me to not having access to the liquid I want in this way. For instance, I need to be able to buy liquid that is higher in PG than VG and has strong flavors, among other things. What if none of the vendors who can verify that their liquid is diacetyl-free meet my other requirements as a consumer? Am I SOL then?

And of course, this is not counting all of the other chemicals I may want my liquid to be free of (acetyl propionyl, etc.).

I agree with the checks and balances of the free market system that we have in place in this industry. But the checks and balances you propose of bringing fraud charges against those who claim their liquid to be diacetyl free when it is not is tough to wrap my head around, because we are talking about thousands of business who sell liquid and flavors they haven't tested, and the number claiming to be diacetyl free is not small. Should we bring charges against them all? How can we even go about doing so? It's a daunting prospect just to think about weeding them all out. And again, it is further complicated by the addition of other chemicals we may want our liquid to be free of.

I am not suggesting by any means that we need government regulation; again, as long as they lack understanding of the industry and fail to work for consumers, they should have no place in this. What I am suggesting is a tightening of industry standards. We should be encouraging all vendors to register with AESMA, ECITA, or another organization that will help them with regular testing, or if they do individual testing that the results be verified by an independent third party and published. Or perhaps we could insist that sources of flavors have all of their products tested, and that vendors/manufacturers verify where they order their flavorings from.

My point (of that post) was IF you are concerned, then it is your responsibility to either test the eliquid yourself or pay someone to do it, or get verification that satisfies you from the vendor.

If there are vendors out there lying, and they're lying to you and you have proof, then any District Attorney would take up the case.

If they're not lying to you, it is not your job to 'save the planet' or to have gov't do it for you with other people's tax money. IOW, people should put their money where their mouth is, not other people's money where their mouth is....

 

[SmokinRabbit]

I think some of the problem too is that it becomes like a big game of telephone.

For example, one of my local B&M shops here, well he buys from a supplier, who brands the bottles for him. The guy he buys from says it's all Diacetyl-Free. Of course the store passes that message along. The supplier may be selling to hundreds of other shops who are also relying on the fact that his "Diacetyl-Free" statement is true, even if it's not.

It may not always be "lying" as much as just passing along inaccurate information.

I am someone who is concerned with the presence of Diacetyl. I've avoided certain flavors because of it. I know it would provide me a lot of peace-of-mind to know for sure when a juice doesn't contain it. It's obvious to stay away from the custards, but I've heard mixed things about some of the flavors I enjoy... like Waffles with Syrup. Some Waffle flavors seem to have it, others don't. I'd really like to make informed decisions without having to give up flavored juice all together.

 

[Kent C]

I am someone who is concerned with the presence of Diacetyl.

How concerned? Enough to do test it yourself, or pay someone to? Enough to ask the vendor to substantiate claims? Enough to seek out vendors who would and provide you with proof?

If you're unwilling to do those, then I submit, you're not that concerned, or... that you're saying you're concerned for some other reason.

 

[dragonpuff]

My point (of that post) was IF you are concerned, then it is your responsibility to either test the eliquid yourself or pay someone to do it, or get verification that satisfies you from the vendor.

If there are vendors out there lying, and they're lying to you and you have proof, then any District Attorney would take up the case.

If they're not lying to you, it is not your job to 'save the planet' or to have gov't do it for you with other people's tax money. IOW, people should put their money where their mouth is, not other people's money where their mouth is....

I understand your reasoning. Personally I am not concerned about these few chemicals here and there in flavorings that may cause a health problem over time. For one thing, I smoked a pack a day for 18 years before this, so a little diacetyl doesn't concern me much. Secondly, if it is a big enough issue to cause health problems in a number of people, then the industry will be forced to self-correct over time just to stay alive.

That said, I am glad to see that I (and others) do have personal and legal recourse if I were to have issue with company claims about flavorings. I am honestly not very familiar with law and litigation, it is not my field, so thank you for clarifying that Kent.

I think some of the problem too is that it becomes like a big game of telephone.

For example, one of my local B&M shops here, well he buys from a supplier, who brands the bottles for him. The guy he buys from says it's all Diacetyl-Free. Of course the store passes that message along. The supplier may be selling to hundreds of other shops who are also relying on the fact that his "Diacetyl-Free" statement is true, even if it's not.

It may not always be "lying" as much as just passing along inaccurate information.

I am someone who is concerned with the presence of Diacetyl. I've avoided certain flavors because of it. I know it would provide me a lot of peace-of-mind to know for sure when a juice doesn't contain it. It's obvious to stay away from the custards, but I've heard mixed things about some of the flavors I enjoy... like Waffles with Syrup. Some Waffle flavors seem to have it, others don't. I'd really like to make informed decisions without having to give up flavored juice all together.

Smokinrabbit, if you are concerned about diacetyl and you do not trust your local B&M, then do not buy there. Make sure you tell them that you require proof of their supplier's chemical testing in order to continue purchasing there.

As stated earlier, diacetyl is found in a wide range of flavors, not just the ones you expect. If you have any particular online vendors you like you can ask them about which liquids contain diacetyl and to provide proof. If you want to find a new vendor but don't want to make it too daunting of a task, you can start with all of the companies listed as registered with AEMSA and ECITA, since they require all of their vendors submit regular testing.

I am not too concerned about this issue right now, because I believe the industry will gradually phase out the use of potentially hazardous chemicals in flavorings, just as the industry responded to battery safety issues by building more safety features into batteries and mods. I believe the only people who should be concerned about diacetyl in flavorings right now are people who already have lung problems (in which case they should really speak with their doctors about these issues). Those who do not can rest assured that the small amounts of diacetyl they're being exposed to until it phases out are not likely to lead to health problems.