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

[Kent C]

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.

You're right. That (the bold) is what has happened with the help of people in this forum, with other similar problems or perceived problems. And like I've said before, what happens here, affects more of the market than 'our' vendors by helping set a standard. And I'm sure the study will affect some vendors in a positive way - others will ignore it - at their own risk, I might add - and others won't have a clue, but if enough customers demand it and the proof of it, it 'self-corrects' without having a regulatory agency hitting every vendor and costing every customer. It may cost more - most premium eliquids already do if one wants quality. All diacetyl-free blurbs should be questioned, and all no mentions of it should be asked - by those so concerned - whether it's just the vendor or whether, as smokinrabbit suggests, they are just relaying information from their wholesaler or manufacturer.

 

[Stubby]

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.

Obviously a bit of cynicism, but is well earned. The original study has been out for some months, and no, I do not keep up with even a fraction of the venders out their, but as of yet I have not heard of any vender that has published any testing. If anyone knows of one please clue us in.

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....

You appear to be saying that venders and manufactures have no responsibility, and the entire responsibility is placed on the consumer. That is a rather strange take on things, especially when it is venders and manufactures that are making money on selling the liquid. I am not quite sure where the attitude that consumers have 100% responsibility is coming from, but it certainly is not the real world. Expecting the consumer to spend hundreds, if not thousands on testing is way out in left field. The average consumer doesn't even have access to labs that would do the testing, much less doing it themselves.

It is obvious that venders have complete responsibility to truthfully inform consumers as to what they are getting. Up to now the have been lying, either inadvertently by passing on bogus information from other sources, or on purpose. It doesn't matter much to the costumer as the results are the same.

 

[Kent C]

You appear to be saying that venders and manufactures have no responsibility,.

I'm saying no such thing. Only that IF as a consumer, it is one's concern about any ingredient in an eliquid is so great, then it is that person's responsibility for their own happiness and contentment to make themselves aware of the possible danger and to demand (as in supply and demand) from vendors that they provide sufficient proof of their claims or answer questions that one may have as a consumer regarding those concerns. IF a vendor doesn't do that, then the consumer should go elsewhere or if they can prove that a vendor is making false claims, then they should report that to the authorities as fraud.

Consumer do have access to labs that would do the tests necessary or some co-op could be formed to test eliquids or flavors that co-op has in common IF the vendor refused. It's still up to the consumer to make that choice, if they are so concerned. If not, then they should drop the concern.

Vendors also have certain responsibilities and since it wasn't a vendor making the statements, I didn't think it necessary to explain those more than I did - ie no fraud and they can decide whether to test or not and they will be judged accordingly. It is always up to the consumer as to what to buy and from where to buy it. That is the real world. Bringing in gov't is where things go 'other-worldly' where truth is twisted and lies are commonplace; where consumers think that gov't has everything is safe and under control and that isn't true of any regulatory agency and the sense of complacency that some take 'because the gov't's involved' ends up making ignorant consumers and businesses who survive by buying politicians, rather than competing in the free market.

And re:

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.

I'm guessing the "7 out of 10 vendors" is an estimation from 70% of the eliquids tested. I don't recall a breakdown of vendors. It could have been 1 out of 10, or 10 out of 10 vendors. Translating the 70% of eliquids to vendors is incorrect, imo, unless someone has the breakdown from the study.

 

[Racehorse]

I am not suggesting by any means that we need government regulation

We went thru all this in the "Donate" topic. Most people just want *disclosure*. That way, they can decide for themselves what to order and vape.

IMHO, the way regulation happens is because companies make false claims and don't want to have any accountability. They don't want to do simple stuff like testing for substances they say their product does not contain, which may be important information to a consumer of their product who wants to, or has to, avoid certain additives.

Conversely, in Kent's scenario:

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.

is a free for all. IMHO. And IMHO, its exactly why and how regulation happens.

If we applied it to food, for instance, and you are allergic to nuts, don't know if there is nuts in a product, you should pay to test the product yourself before using it (in addition to paying to purchase the item)........even if the company says "there are no nuts in our product."

That way, after you die of anaphylactic shock, your surviving family can sue somebody I guess.

This is exactly how and why regulation happens. Because some companies want to put all the burden on the consumer, and feel they owe the consumer.......nada.

The only alternative you have, right now, at your disposal, is just don't buy from vendors in a multi billion dollar industry who can't seem to find $200 to test their product before making false claims to you about what is not in their juice.

If you don't have a test result then you can't know, and Dr. F. was clear about this. If a vendor claims there is no diacetyls, and you don't want diacetyls, then ask for a test result. Otherwise, pass.

On this, Kent and I do seem to agree

It's still up to the consumer to make that choice, if they are so concerned. If not, then they should drop the concern.

 

[Racehorse]

Another point on which I also share agreement with Kent:

consumers think that gov't has everything is safe and under control and that isn't true of any regulatory agency

Safe and under control is never guaranteed.

However, a having a test result CAN be guaranteed, if it is a requirement. It would of course, be best if companies were not *forced* to do that, and the way to avoid that is to do so voluntarily. As we know, a select group of vendors has already done that, or are doing that.

For me, a test result definitively answers the question of whether or not there were diacetyls in my ejuice. Then I can buy from that vendor. Seems like a win/win scenario to me.

 

[Kent C]

Another point on which I also share agreement with Kent:



Safe and under control is never guaranteed.

However, a having a test result CAN be guaranteed, if it is a requirement. It would of course, be best if companies were not *forced* to do that, and the way to avoid that is to do so voluntarily. As we know, a select group of vendors has already done that, or are doing that.

For me, a test result definitively answers the question of whether or not there were diacetyls in my ejuice. Then I can buy from that vendor. Seems like a win/win scenario to me.

It depends on how much demand their will be for diacetyl-free eliquid. I agree that a test, properly done, will tell one if DA exists or not, but it doesn't guarantee safety and it doesn't prove that the low amounts of DA/AP are harmful or not harmful, only that they would not exist in the eliquid. And much of that depends on getting the information out - what we're here for basically

But yes, if there is enough demand, then other vendors will be, not forced, but behooved to test or risk going out of (or at least losing some) business, but again, it is the demand by consumers that pushes that gate open. Or vendors can open that gate as well.

My main point was that it is that type of 'someone ought to do something about X, because I'm 'concerned about it' is how gov't gets involved, when that 'someone,' who should do something, is the person who states it. They have a concern and it is their responsibility to do something about it whether by themselves, or asking the vendor to do so or finding a vendor that will.

 

[Kent C]

Conversely, in Kent's scenario:


is a free for all. IMHO. And IMHO, its exactly why and how regulation happens.

It is not how regulation happens. It happens by politicians making decisions on who gets to produce what - usually the people/businesses who contribute to their campaign. Like, for example, RJR asking to shut down all other privately owned ecig businesses and favoring only theirs. Or special interest ANTZ-type groups made up of those 'someone should do something about X' types and using junk science to create something for which something appears to be needed done - and sometimes when that isn't even the case! Like the poison campaign and the campaign for kids and against flavoring - X isn't happening, so they create an X and then push to ban it or regulate it or tax it or both of the last two.

And again, as I've pointed out in the past - a person is responsible for their own life. If they want certain things, they have to inform themselves. When they leave it to gov't, they get really stupid and are more of a target for businesses, cons, gov't (I repeat myself). A knowledgeable consumer has power. We've proved that here and only gov't can take that away and it's always by force or threat of force.

 

[Bob Chill]

IMO- this issue can be resolved pretty easily. Juice vendors buy the vast majority if not 100% of their flavors from the same 6 vendors (Hangsen, Flavor West, Capellas, Flavour Art, The Flavor Apprentice, and Loranns). These aren't small companies. They are top of the supply chain distributors for the entire food and beverage industry. They also make plenty of money off the ecig industry and growing every day. All of their ingredients have been tested and approved for consumption but inhalation is basically brand new and evolving.

IMO- vendors are being lied to by approved suppliers unless they know for certain that a specific flavor contains the ingredients in question and they continue to use them without disclosure (I'm sure this is happening but it's not the root of the problem). The burden of responsibility should be at the manufacturer level. Right now there is no responsibility required because it hasn't been officially deemed unsafe to inhale these ingredients. We're in self police mode.

One thing vendors can do is collectively require testing from manufacturers or no more purchases. Will this hit them in the wallet enough to turn a hand? I'm not sure. I suppose it could. There has been plenty of discussion on this topic in the DIY forum and the responses from the manufacturers has been muddy to say the least. This could have changed recently because I haven't paid much attention lately.

Would it be smart for vendors to take it in their own hands at this point? Probably. But the burden should lie at the top and not in the middle imo. It would be nice to see manufacturers step up in light of the increasing concerns of a few specific chemicals. They have something to lose and they sure have the most resources at their disposal to take care of this issue once and for all.

ETA: Considering we are facing potential approval for each individual flavor from each vendor there are things that can be done in advance to potentially lighten the burden of regulations. Juice is lower tech than a can of soda. 4 simple components mixed in a bottle. PG/VG/Nic Base are simple to standardize across the industry. If flavoring can be standardized then juice mixers have the opportunity to follow guidelines similar to the food industry. Bakers don't have to get their cookie approved because everything they use is already approved and they simply abide by commercial kitchen standards. The juice industry should go down that route unless of course the intent is to hand it over to BT. Oh the times we are in...

 

[2coils]

We went thru all this in the "Donate" topic. Most people just want *disclosure*. That way, they can decide for themselves what to order and vape.

IMHO, the way regulation happens is because companies make false claims and don't want to have any accountability. They don't want to do simple stuff like testing for substances they say their product does not contain, which may be important information to a consumer of their product who wants to, or has to, avoid certain additives.

Conversely, in Kent's scenario:


is a free for all. IMHO. And IMHO, its exactly why and how regulation happens.

If we applied it to food, for instance, and you are allergic to nuts, don't know if there is nuts in a product, you should pay to test the product yourself before using it (in addition to paying to purchase the item)........even if the company says "there are no nuts in our product."

That way, after you die of anaphylactic shock, your surviving family can sue somebody I guess.

This is exactly how and why regulation happens. Because some companies want to put all the burden on the consumer, and feel they owe the consumer.......nada.

The only alternative you have, right now, at your disposal, is just don't buy from vendors in a multi billion dollar industry who can't seem to find $200 to test their product before making false claims to you about what is not in their juice.

If you don't have a test result then you can't know, and Dr. F. was clear about this. If a vendor claims there is no diacetyls, and you don't want diacetyls, then ask for a test result. Otherwise, pass.

On this, Kent and I do seem to agree

My 2cents.....Well said Racehourse.
Our industry has been less than proactive to avoid regulation. We have known about this issue for SEVERAL years. Many manufacturers have not taken it seriously. If they did, the results of this study would not be as disastrous as they are. We need to also take into account, Dr F has been MORE than Competent do do these studies in an effective and unbiased manner. It is up to those making liquids to run independent testing and up to the vendors who sell liquids to demand it! This industry has shown little ability to get together and police itself, so UNFORTUNATELY our control freak government IS going to do it excessively for us! 95% or more of vapers really have no worries and have shown no interest in anything of a political or regulation based nature.

 

[bigdancehawk]

95% or more of vapers really have no worries and have shown no interest in anything of a political or regulation based nature.

So, are you saying there really are risks posed by passive vaping?

 

[2coils]

So, are you saying there really are risks posed by passive vaping?

What I am saying, is vapers want to vape. That is it. Most do not want to get involved in any of this type of debate.

As for safety, and diacetyl, I am saying, this is not the first discussion, about this, that has taken place. We have known about the potential for this ingredient/compound to be in our liquids, and according to this study, the industry has not reacted enough, to put this to rest. It is an ingredient that does not have to be there, yet after several years of knowing about it, we still have it present. I am not making claims one way or another.

 

[Lovemychow]

Where would you go to have your juice tested? I buy from a local B&M and asked them if their juice had diacetyl in it and they acted like they didn't know what I was talking about, then told me the only thing in their juice is nic..flavoring...pg...vg. As many years as I smoked I really shouldn't be worried about it but if can be avoided I would like to.

 

[bigdancehawk]

What I am saying, is vapers want to vape. That is it. Most do not want to get involved in any of this type of debate.

As for safety, and diacetyl, I am saying, this is not the first discussion, about this, that has taken place. We have known about the potential for this ingredient/compound to be in our liquids, and according to this study, the industry has not reacted enough, to put this to rest. It is an ingredient that does not have to be there, yet after several years of knowing about it, we still have it present. I am not making claims one way or another.

Joke

Your head

 

[2coils]

Where would you go to have your juice tested? I buy from a local B&M and asked them if their juice had diacetyl in it and they acted like they didn't know what I was talking about, then told me the only thing in their juice is nic..flavoring...pg...vg. As many years as I smoked I really shouldn't be worried about it but if can be avoided I would like to.

Your vendor SHOULD know more than that. I applaud you for asking. If they dont know what it is, you may want to consider another company, if they are mixing their own liquids.

 

[Kent C]

Some flavor manufactures have no interest in eliquid flavorings. Whether someone uses their flavors for that, is up to the consumer. Others cater to eliquids specifically, so they should get involved. Some have....


Hangsen:

Big Facts Of Electronic Cigarettes Safety 2012_Hangsen Holding Co.,Ltd


from Capella's FAQ:
Coffee Flavorings | Soda Stream Flavors | Natural Flavorings

Do any of your flavorings contain Diacetyl ?

We do not use Diacetyl in ANY of our flavorings.
Even though Diacetyl is on the FDA approved GRAS list for flavoring manufacturers, there are other compounds available to mimic a buttery/creamy taste.

FlavourArt faq on diacetyl.

Supporto e Informazioni :: Che cosa è il Diacetile? - Supporto e Informazioni Risultati della Ricerca - FlavourArt - La sartoria degli aromi

We realize that for E smokers, our food flavors are used in a different way as they are not ingested but inhaled, and the presence of diacetyl can be a cause of concern.

For this reason we have carried out massive removal of diacetyl from our flavor collection since November 2010 and product still containing it are clearly identified.

Disclaimer: We produce and sell FOOD FLAVORS which comply with Italian and EU legislation and EFSA reccomendation. They are safe for FOOD use as they are intended to enter the body by the digestive system, not by lungs.

Digestion involves acid breakdown, enzyme attack, and kidney and liver processing. Vapor by the lungs goes directly in the blood stream. Even though due to absence of combustion, vaping can be compared to odor smelling in open air, consumption of food flavors by vaping has not been specifically tested for safety. Flavourart srl can not be held responsible for any claim or damage arising by the use of food flavor by the means of electronic devices as E-vapers, E cigarettes and similar.

Flavor Apprentice:
https://shop.perfumersapprentice.com/t-faq.aspx

Lorann:

No information but this company has stated (an email posted here somewhere) it's a food flavoring company and has no interest in ecigarettes.

Flavor West - no info faq link not working..

 

[Jman8]

IMO- this issue can be resolved pretty easily. Juice vendors buy the vast majority if not 100% of their flavors from the same 6 vendors (Hangsen, Flavor West, Capellas, Flavour Art, The Flavor Apprentice, and Loranns). These aren't small companies. They are top of the supply chain distributors for the entire food and beverage industry. They also make plenty of money off the ecig industry and growing every day. All of their ingredients have been tested and approved for consumption but inhalation is basically brand new and evolving.

IMO- vendors are being lied to by approved suppliers unless they know for certain that a specific flavor contains the ingredients in question and they continue to use them without disclosure (I'm sure this is happening but it's not the root of the problem). The burden of responsibility should be at the manufacturer level. Right now there is no responsibility required because it hasn't been officially deemed unsafe to inhale these ingredients. We're in self police mode.

One thing vendors can do is collectively require testing from manufacturers or no more purchases. Will this hit them in the wallet enough to turn a hand? I'm not sure. I suppose it could. There has been plenty of discussion on this topic in the DIY forum and the responses from the manufacturers has been muddy to say the least. This could have changed recently because I haven't paid much attention lately.

Would it be smart for vendors to take it in their own hands at this point? Probably. But the burden should lie at the top and not in the middle imo. It would be nice to see manufacturers step up in light of the increasing concerns of a few specific chemicals. They have something to lose and they sure have the most resources at their disposal to take care of this issue once and for all.

ETA: Considering we are facing potential approval for each individual flavor from each vendor there are things that can be done in advance to potentially lighten the burden of regulations. Juice is lower tech than a can of soda. 4 simple components mixed in a bottle. PG/VG/Nic Base are simple to standardize across the industry. If flavoring can be standardized then juice mixers have the opportunity to follow guidelines similar to the food industry. Bakers don't have to get their cookie approved because everything they use is already approved and they simply abide by commercial kitchen standards. The juice industry should go down that route unless of course the intent is to hand it over to BT. Oh the times we are in...

In the opening paragraph, you say "the same 6 vendors" and then later say "require testing from manufacturers." Are the "6 vendors" the manufacturers you are referring to?

If yes, then I would think it would be easier, possibly better business decision to cut ties with all eCig vendors who are asking for these manufacturers to take on a burden they previously didn't require until eCig vendors came along. Sure they'll lose business, but also lose the burden being put upon them (which equates to extra costs). Unless a flavor manufacturer wants to make their primary business for eCig vendors, and fully realizes the burdens from both consumers and government, I don't see why a flavor manufacturer would take on the burden. Plus, when flavor manufacturer does take on that burden, I'm sure ANTZ will be hounding them forever and a day with additional (and irrational) burdens.

I stand with Kent on this and feel it is consumer responsibility. That doesn't have to mean individual, isolated responsibility. Consumers could join together, pool resources, and make demands as a group. Some of which may be ignored as irrational, others which would likely have vendors sit up and take notice.

Yet, I also split from many posters in this thread as the reality is this study comes at a time when government is getting involved. That's not a maybe thing. Perhaps 5 years ago, the discussion about self policing and the merits of that approach would be wonderful approach to handling this perceived problem. But reality is if I go to another thread in this subforum (News and Legislation), I'll see almost all the same posters stating that regulations are inevitable, they will kill the industry, and we're all doomed. But here on this thread, we have a fighting chance to self police. That don't add up.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Where would you go to have your juice tested? I buy from a local B&M and asked them if their juice had diacetyl in it and they acted like they didn't know what I was talking about, then told me the only thing in their juice is nic..flavoring...pg...vg. As many years as I smoked I really shouldn't be worried about it but if can be avoided I would like to.

ASTM International - Laboratory Directory

 

[Bob Chill]

In the opening paragraph, you say "the same 6 vendors" and then later say "require testing from manufacturers." Are the "6 vendors" the manufacturers you are referring to?

If yes, then I would think it would be easier, possibly better business decision to cut ties with all eCig vendors who are asking for these manufacturers to take on a burden they previously didn't require until eCig vendors came along. Sure they'll lose business, but also lose the burden being put upon them (which equates to extra costs). Unless a flavor manufacturer wants to make their primary business for eCig vendors, and fully realizes the burdens from both consumers and government, I don't see why a flavor manufacturer would take on the burden. Plus, when flavor manufacturer does take on that burden, I'm sure ANTZ will be hounding them forever and a day with additional (and irrational) burdens.

I stand with Kent on this and feel it is consumer responsibility. That doesn't have to mean individual, isolated responsibility. Consumers could join together, pool resources, and make demands as a group. Some of which may be ignored as irrational, others which would likely have vendors sit up and take notice.

Yet, I also split from many posters in this thread as the reality is this study comes at a time when government is getting involved. That's not a maybe thing. Perhaps 5 years ago, the discussion about self policing and the merits of that approach would be wonderful approach to handling this perceived problem. But reality is if I go to another thread in this subforum (News and Legislation), I'll see almost all the same posters stating that regulations are inevitable, they will kill the industry, and we're all doomed. But here on this thread, we have a fighting chance to self police. That don't add up.

Yes, 6 manufacturers. All of us DIY folks and juice shops buy from the same places. It's a small world in that regard.


The ecig industry is exploding into a multi-billion dollar global industry at breakneck speed. If a flavor manufacturer doesn't want a slice of that then they are idiots. Every flavor they sell is GRAS already. They spent plenty of time and money getting that done for each artificial flavor in their lineup and they are all staring at a potential cash cow for decades if they do the same thing for the ecig world.

 

[Bob Chill]

And to add to my previous post. If we all really want small boutique style retail juice (all of our favorites) to survive the fallout when the regs hit, we had better hope that approved components are the way it goes or it's all over. It's not even remotely feasible for a small or even medium sized vendor to survive and approval process on each different recipe.

The only way we can protect any semblance of what we have now is to have components approved one or 2 levels above the actual mixers who sell to the end users.

 

[Kent C]

And to add to my previous post. If we all really want small boutique style retail juice (all of our favorites) to survive the fallout when the regs hit, we had better hope that approved components are the way it goes or it's all over. It's not even remotely feasible for a small or even medium sized vendor to survive and approval process on each different recipe.

The only way we can protect any semblance of what we have now is to have components approved one or 2 levels above the actual mixers who sell to the end users.

Given the current FDA/WHO thing, if I were a flavor manufacturer, I'd wait to see what happens there before investing in any more testing. Until then I'd disclaim any flavorings for inhalation. If at some point it appears that ecigs and eliquid will be allowed to continue to exist, I'd jump in with both feet.

Until then the push will be primarily from consumer to vendor to manufacturer. And if there are 'claims' from vendors or manufacturers - the push for proof of that should be the same sequence - consumer, vendor, manufacturer and with no proof - then government - but not from regulators, but from the justice system for fraud. One would be amazed at how other vendors would get very concerned about what they claim, if one vendor has to pay a fine or go to jail.