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

[Bob Chill]

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.

I agree with this. But things are getting muddy between what is being said by flavor manufacturers and what is being found from independent testing. For now, we are only talking about a couple chemicals in question. I don't see it as being difficult at all classify flavors as being free from them and having lab findings to back it up regardless of what the end use is. The manufacturers are moving in that direction now but remaining insulated from liability through disclaimers (and I would as well).

I'd be willing to bet they are working in their labs behind closed doors with flavor lineups designated for the ecig industry right now. First up to the plate with that lineup stands to make a mint if things shake out a certain way. If the burden of responsibility does in fact get put on the juice mixers then everybody loses except for DIY people.

 

[Nate760]

Unsurprisingly, now we've got a bunch of alarmist headlines screaming things like "E-CIG LIQUID LINKED TO SERIOUS LUNG DISEASE." Which is, of course, intentionally misleading and an outright lie (since there's no evidence, and no one has even suggested, that anyone's gotten popcorn lung from vaping), but then, lying and misleading is what these people do best.

 

[Jman8]

I agree with this. But things are getting muddy between what is being said by flavor manufacturers and what is being found from independent testing. For now, we are only talking about a couple chemicals in question. I don't see it as being difficult at all classify flavors as being free from them and having lab findings to back it up regardless of what the end use is. The manufacturers are moving in that direction now but remaining insulated from liability through disclaimers (and I would as well).

The "For now" and "don't see it as being difficult" parts pique my long term interest in this type of discussion. The way I see it is no chemical is inherently safe and ANTZ methodology will bear that out if eCig industry over say next 5 years is still around and somewhat thriving. IMO, one just needs to look at how brutally attacked nicotine is in the media (even among 'health' professionals) and realize that Chantix often appears to get a free pass despite having many reports that seem exact opposite of GRAS.

I continue to wonder what replacement chemicals in flavors do to the flavors in terms of quality and safety. My previous paragraph addresses safety and how I don't see that ever being a cake walk for vaping community, or as long as ANTZ (rationale) is around. With quality, I'll claim ignorance, but feel like saying that if diacetyl occurs naturally, relates to flavoring, then I have tough time seeing it as inherently bad. Especially considering it has been part of 'golden era' of vaping and is already one of many ingredients that people (smokers) have been inhaling for decades. At same time, I recognize that if it stays, it becomes super duper easy target for ANTZ to do their dirty work. But am also saying if it is gone, there will be another chemical on the chopping block in due time. That for me isn't a maybe thing. I would say count on it.

I'd be willing to bet they are working in their labs behind closed doors with flavor lineups designated for the ecig industry right now. First up to the plate with that lineup stands to make a mint if things shake out a certain way. If the burden of responsibility does in fact get put on the juice mixers then everybody loses except for DIY people.

If you are not of the philosophy that burden stands foremost with the consumer, then I would think juice mixers would, at very least, have shared responsibility on this matter. I would (then) see it as everyone involved arguably has shared responsibility, which from ANTZ perspective, means shared liability and thus means incessantly attacking each under guise of shared liability. Realizing that some will fold, some won't, but those that do fold can be touted by favorable media (toward ANTZ logic) and make industry appear like it is dealing with a bunch of rogue entities. And as those rogue entities do stand decent chance of making billions annually, they become next form of "big business" to put up as poster child for all that is wrong with this world. They, like the tobacco companies before them, are intentionally putting 'harmful' chemicals in their product and all for the sake of profit.

That's the world I see coming for those who believe this issue is not mostly to entirely consumer responsibility.

Incidentally, I now feel like I live in a world where people do get that nothing is inherently safe, yet also willing to buy into media frenzy that spotlights latest dastardly chemical, ingredient, thingamajig and demands that whoever is making that change course now or be held financially responsible. Won't anyone think of the children?

 

[SmokinRabbit]

Personally, I don't much care of who is liable "legally". What I'm interested in is accurate information, which appears to be getting increasingly difficult to obtain, and if nothing else, this new study proves just that.

Of course ANTZ (or anyone) can distort what they report and can make mountains out of molehills with any chemical. However, when a study shows there are 400+ times of a known dangerous-to-inhale chemical in a product that claimed it wasn't there at all... well we should ALL be concerned! This is why the report was, in part, published to begin with. Because it is, indeed, an avoidable risk, but the industry itself has to do something about it.

It's fine to put the onus back on the consumer. ..We are responsible for what we ingest/inhale, put in our bodies. But it has to be reasonable for us to know or find out what it is we are, in fact, inhaling. This is why there was a bit of an uproar a few years ago about arsenic being found in Apple Juice. When I buy juice from the store, I should feel relatively safe from the fact that drinking it doesn't require me to go to a lab first to have it tested, to make sure there aren't dangerous chemicals present.

Can you imagine how expensive life could become if we ourselves had to test everything we use for safety? Come on now.

There are lots of questions that remain about this study, the most important being: How did it happened that vendors/manufacturers claimed there was no diacetyl and then testing proved there was.

Was it lying, was it communication breaking down between business channels, or was something else? Is diacetyl showing up as a result of nefarious behavior on the manufacturers' part, or is it that it's naturally occurring, or occurring because of certain mixtures and chemical reactions after the fact? If it occurs naturally, is that as dangerous as adding it? If it occurs because of certain flavor mixtures, what are they and how easy are they to avoid? etc...

Lots of questions.

Me, I would just like to know what to avoid at this point. Sure, I could avoid ALL flavors, but I'd like to not have to, since flavors are at least part of what is helping me avoid tobacco.

 

[Jode]

I'm with SmokinRabbit. I feel lied to. Not because I am living in a bubble of thinking everything out there is safe. I know that there are tons of "poisons" in our air, water, things we eat and drink, and well every aspect of life. But and this is a huge BUT, these juice companies have been making a claim that this chemical was not present. If you want to sell something to the public you need to know (as absolutely as possible) what is in the product, take into consideration how that product may be used, and study what safety issues you may need to warn against. If you cannot do the proper studies then do not make claims you cannot back up.

Diacetyl was one of the issues that pricked my ears up before taking my first toot on an e-cig, but it was clearly something that could be avoided according to many juice companies sites. I understand that I was using a product that had 4000+ chemicals in it, but this is what I wanted to change. I was trying to be responsible for a change and research what I was inhaling so I could pass on correct info to anybody that wanted to jump on the train. I did and still do expect that some report could come up at any time stating safety issues with e-cigs. It is still considered new and proper long term studies are just not there. What I did not expect to find out is that
FALSE claims (however they originated) were being made. It's sad but I guess it is just the world we live in. No accountability from sellers and inaccurate info so that consumers cannot make informed choices.
Unfortunately, I am addicted to nicotine, so I will continue to use my e-cig to stay off of analogs. My choice to make now is...Do I throw away (or give away) my newly acquired collection of juices out of uncertainty and take up DIY making only flavorless or do I bury my head and try to pretend I am not upset about this newest finding and vape my custards without care? Rhetorical btw. I am so discouraged.

 

[Kent C]

Again, IF you're concerned then you have to make that known to vendors and seek out those vendors who can prove it to your satisfaction. When enough people do that, vendors will either respond or go out of business. If none do, then you have to do it. Simple as that. Gov't doesn't ensure safety. If you think it does, you have more problems than inhaling diacetyl.

 

[SmokinRabbit]

Again, IF you're concerned then you have to make that known to vendors and seek out those vendors who can prove it to your satisfaction. When enough people do that, vendors will either respond or go out of business. If none do, then you have to do it. Simple as that. Gov't doesn't ensure safety. If you think it does, you have more problems than inhaling diacetyl.

Government doesn't ensure safety, but a little pressure from the masses as well as some basic following of RULES does help lend to a safer society.

For example, it's pretty well established that if I go into Dunkin Donuts to get myself a treat, it isn't going to be laced with Hemlock. Why? Because it would be stupid for them to do it, because putting poison known to hurt and kill people into food might result in you getting arrested, and because the health department has certain rules in place to help lend to a safer experience buying food. It doesn't provide 100% safety because no one can, but it does, overall, help consumers have a certain level of assurance.

I've already suggested random testing inside the industry itself (not by the government). I've already put some of the responsibility back on the consumer. That doesn't mean it's okay for juice vendors and manufacturers to lie, mislead or pass on inaccurate information themselves, which we now know for sure they are doing.

I've also already given examples of how I've asked my local shops about being diacetyl-free. They say they are. One even showed me his suppliers website. The next step would be for me to get them to get their suppliers to prove that their ingredients are diacetyl-free. Maybe they have chemistry reports they can provide, and maybe they don't... but even if they do, do we know for sure that some of the manufacturers in this study didn't have that already, that the diacetyl itself wasn't a result of some mix of ingredients or just naturally occurring? No, we don't have that information, and without it, all this screaming about proving it is pointless.

 

[Kent C]

Government doesn't ensure safety, but a little pressure from the masses as well as some basic following of RULES does help lend to a safer society.

For example, it's pretty well established that if I go into Dunkin Donuts to get myself a treat, it isn't going to be laced with Hemlock. Why? Because it would be stupid for them to do it, .

That is the best protection. And again when you speak of vendors lying or being deceived themselves, is the reason for this above: "who can prove it to your satisfaction." IOW, don't take their blurb at face value, inquire.

 

[SmokinRabbit]

That is the best protection. And again when you speak of vendors lying or being deceived themselves, is the reason for this above: "who can prove it to your satisfaction." IOW, don't take their blurb at face value, inquire.

Don't agree. It's more than that. Otherwise there WILL be vendors who will take advantage of consumer's ignorance just to make a quick buck. If there isn't at least SOME fear that someone will challenge their claims, there are no reasons for their claims to be true... or, with less evil intent, for them to go any further than just listening to their suppliers or flavor extract manufacturers when they make their claims.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a government entity, but oversight by someone would be nice. Would be best if it was an organization within the industry itself. But if the industry won't self-regulate, I think someone will need to step in. Obviously, so far, they aren't doing a great job.

 

[Nate760]

Doesn't necessarily have to be a government entity, but oversight by someone would be nice. Would be best if it was an organization within the industry itself.

It's a nice idea, but in order for a self-regulating system to work, every player in the industry has to be willing to join the organization (and pay the required dues), and to abide by its rulings. Moreover, you have to convince the government that the industry is willing and able to regulate itself just as stringently as the state would. This is probably the tallest order of all, especially when you're making a product designed for human consumption (as opposed to other self-regulating industries like the motion picture business).

 

[SmokinRabbit]

It's a nice idea, but in order for a self-regulating system to work, every player in the industry has to be willing to join the organization (and pay the required dues), and to abide by its rulings. Moreover, you have to convince the government that the industry is willing and able to regulate itself just as stringently as the state would. This is probably the tallest order of all, especially when you're making a product designed for human consumption (as opposed to other self-regulating industries like the motion picture business).

I agree, I'm just countering the argument that any government regulation is bad. Hey, I'm a New Yorker, so most of us near the city in the populated areas expect a certain amount of government in our lives (LOL), but I can see all sides of it.

I think the industry SHOULD move towards self regulation and try to take care of itself as much as possible... I think the government will indeed regulate anyway, but in a perfect world, maybe it would make that process a whole lot more painless and there'd be more willingness on the part of government to back off a bit. But the industry has to do a good job of self-regulating, and so far, as proven by this study, they aren't. At all.

I think it's ridiculous that the headlines focus on the "lung disease" part and are misleading.
But we should be concerned because sensational headlines about how self regulation is not working are going to come... and those will be 100% right. CASAA, SFATA, the AEMSA, whoever (I don't know all the players) -- they need to jump on this.

 

[Nate760]

I think the industry SHOULD move towards self regulation and try to take care of itself as much as possible... I think the government will indeed regulate anyway, but in a perfect world, maybe it would make that process a whole lot more painless and there'd be more willingness on the part of government to back off a bit. But the industry has to do a good job of self-regulating, and so far, as proven by this study, they aren't. At all.

One problem is that a lot of people in the industry don't really give a damn about the industry's future, and have no inclination to get involved in any type of activism on its behalf. They fully expect to be put out of business through legislative action (be it on the federal, state, or local level) at some point, and are just trying to rake in as much cash as possible before that day comes.

There's a rather stark difference between 1) the people who got into the business because vaping had a positive effect on their lives, and who are motivated by a desire to help others and foster a positive future for the industry as a whole, and 2) the people who don't really know or care about vaping, and merely saw a convenient opportunity to cash in on a popular new trend. It's the people in the latter group who represent the biggest impediment to uniting the industry toward any sort of common cause.

 

[sonicdsl]

This discussion reminded me I hadn't checked the AEMSA website in awhile. Looking it over just now, I've found that they've engaged the services of a GMP company, and also brought the President of that company (InstantGMP) on board as a Subject Matter Expert, in order to further refine their manufacturing requirements.

AEMSA Welcomes New GMP SME | AEMSA

This company now has a section devoted to Vaping GMP, which I found to be quite interesting: Manufacturing Software for E-Liquid Production

 

[bigdancehawk]

That is the best protection. And again when you speak of vendors lying or being deceived themselves, is the reason for this above: "who can prove it to your satisfaction." IOW, don't take their blurb at face value, inquire.

I sent this e-mail to a vendor:

I noted your statement that your juice contains no diacetyl. I have just two questions: How do you know that? Do you have it tested or are you relying on the flavor manufacturers' representations? Is you liquid free of acetyl propionyl?

Here's their reply:

All of our ingredients are 100% made in the USA and mixed in house, to insure freshness. Our ingredients include: Nicotine Liquid that is sourced in the US and is 99.57% Pure, and meets EU6.0 Medical Grade Standards, Propylene Gylcol and Vegetable Gylcerin that are both sourced in the US, and are 99.7% Pure, USP Food Grade and Kosher, and lastly, FDA approved natural and artificial Flavorings. All of our flavorings are Diacetyl free! I hope this helps! If you have any other questions or concerns, just let me know.
Have a wonderful afternoon!

Of course, this isn't responsive at all. It just repeats the representations they make on their website. So, I asked again:

Thanks for the prompt response. My concern about this stems from reading a new lab study which found diacetyl in many e-liquids even though the purveyors claimed that their products were diacetyl free. This study was commissioned by CASAA and performed by Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, who is generally very positive about e-cigarettes. Rather than performing their own testing, some juice makers are relying on representations made by their flavor suppliers, some of which have been shown to be false.

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

Please re-read my initial inquiry. I ask again: what evidence backs your claim about diacetyl and has your e-liquid been tested for acetyl propionyl?

That went out Thursday and I haven't yet received a response.

 

[Jman8]

Personally, I don't much care of who is liable "legally". What I'm interested in is accurate information, which appears to be getting increasingly difficult to obtain, and if nothing else, this new study proves just that.

And I find the "accurate information" item to be what will always be in question. Always.

So you make diacetyl-free products? Whoopdee do for you. Chances are pretty good that chemicals you do have in the product will be found by some scientist to create some problem in some humans. But the crowd that is all so happy that they are now vaping diacetyl-free will be rather ignorant of this until the next study comes down the pike to establish the next major concern.

Therefore, I can see some consumers who are okay with diacetyl being in there, knowing they inhaled it for many years as a smoker, and are still alive and kicking. But, the way this thread (and ones similar to it) play out is if we can just fix the diacetyl problem, then we'll be home free. A risk will have been avoided, and our vaping will be GRAS.

I call foul on that but realize it is how the masses always respond to this sort of reporting. Clear the current hurdle and ignore, for now, the additional ingredient being put in to substitute for the previous one, and hope for the best. While in reality, those users are just waiting, fingers crossed, for there not to be another report linking the ingredients to some malady.

To think, we've been boasting about vaping for the last few years, the Golden Era of vaping, but here we have plausibly been shown that we were making certain claims, or comments to the FDA, from ignorance. How dare 'they' do that to me! 'They' need to self regulate. And they need to do this because I am concerned with my health, but not so concerned that I would just stop vaping until this is all sorted out to my satisfaction. Heavens no!

 

[SmokinRabbit]

Jman,

I can't tell you what I'll be doing in six months, whether I'll still be vaping or not (this is all relatively new for me as I quit smoking). What I can tell you is that I'm a reasonable person. Yes, I know diacetyl was in the cigarettes I smoked, but when a study comes out that says it was found in some efluid in the magnitude of 400+ times more than cigarettes, in fluid that was claiming to be diacetyl-free... well, I think a reaction of concern on my part falls in line with something more warranted than ridiculous.

 

[Kent C]

I know diacetyl was in the cigarettes I smoked, but when a study comes out that says it was found in some efluid in the magnitude of 400+ times more than cigarettes, in fluid that was claiming to be diacetyl-free... well, I think a reaction of concern on my part falls in line with something more warranted than ridiculous.

Tobacco cigarettes smoke contains both compounds, at levels 100 times higher for diacetyl and 10 times higher for acetyl propionyl compared to e-cigarette average daily exposure.

IOW, for those who aren't following closely - cigs have 100 times more diacetyl than ecigs. Not the reverse, as the poster above has stated.

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

.... and the study didn't indicate eliquids that were proclaimed as 'diacetyl-free'. Only that some of the vendors, not specified, claimed that.

 

[readeuler]

But, the way this thread (and ones similar to it) play out is if we can just fix the diacetyl problem, then we'll be home free. A risk will have been avoided, and our vaping will be GRAS.

I call foul on that but realize it is how the masses always respond to this sort of reporting. Clear the current hurdle and ignore, for now, the additional ingredient being put in to substitute for the previous one, and hope for the best. While in reality, those users are just waiting, fingers crossed, for there not to be another report linking the ingredients to some malady.

I don't think the general attitude will be "Mission Accomplished, now our vapor is pure and perfect" when we start getting questions about the presence of diacetyl (sp, sorry) answered.

1) I think the study raises some good issues about the faith we have in manufacturers, and more importantly,

2) I think it will be a very positive experience to for the industry to listen to folks, who are already voting with their money as buyers, to look into the products more deeply.

I think this 2nd point is very important, because it could only make the vapor industry undergo more beneficial two-way communication.

People have clearly shown a preference for liquid without certain chemicals (hence the claims made by vendors), and getting this issue resolved just means that the industry is competent enough to change certain practices when there's a strong enough demand.

That's ultimately what I think the good will be, not so much the presence of one particular chemical (although that clearly matters).

 

[SmokinRabbit]

Tobacco cigarettes smoke contains both compounds, at levels 100 times higher for diacetyl and 10 times higher for acetyl propionyl compared to e-cigarette average daily exposure.

IOW, for those who aren't following closely - cigs have 100 times more diacetyl than ecigs. Not the reverse, as the poster above has stated.

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

.... and the study didn't indicate eliquids that were proclaimed as 'diacetyl-free'. Only that some of the vendors, not specified, claimed that.

You can go to the same link you posted and read what I said is true... though admittedly, I did get the numbers slightly wrong. You, on the other hand, eliminated the most important part of the quote.

"...more than 40% of the samples [or ejuice tested] had higher than safety levels. Of note, the highest amount of diacetyl found was 495 times higher than safety limits, while for acetyl propionyl it was 22 times higher. Tobacco cigarettes smoke contains both compounds, at levels 100 times higher for diacetyl and 10 times higher for acetyl propionyl compared to e-cigarette average daily exposure."

So let me rephrase...

Yes, I know diacetyl was in the cigarettes I smoked, but when a study comes out that says it was found in some efluid in the magnitude of 400+ times more than the safety limits -- 400% higher than tobacco cigarettes -- in fluid of which some were claiming to be diacetyl-free... well, I think a reaction of concern on my part falls in line with something more warranted than ridiculous.



Also, Dr. Farsalinos who is the author of the study, he said right on the same page in comments:

"Many liquids with diacetyl came from vendors who specifically and clearly mentioned in their websites that all products are diacetyl-free. Thus, only proper testing and presentation of the testing report will ensure that these products are indeed free from these chemicals."

 

[rolygate]

This whole thing is starting to get complicated, and the study itself raises as many questions as it answers.

For example:

- Why don't smokers get popcorn lung? Thousands of smokers will be inhaling more diacetyl than anyone ever has in any other situation.

- Some people who got popcorn lung had double lung transplants, then developed it again with no exposure to diacetyl (or so it has been reported). What's going on there?

- One person (maybe more?) got popcorn lung from eating microwave popcorn. He had one bag a day for ten years. This is a tiny exposure: breathing in a food flavoring for 10 minutes a day is a very small exposure indeed, by any measurement. Was this a case of misidentified COPD, or fraud, or did it genuinely occur? How did it occur, with such a tiny exposure?

- Some vapers will be breathing in thousands of times more diacetyl than this popcorn eater ever did (think cloud chasers using creamy / sweet refills and going through 8ml to 20ml a day). What's going to happen here?


I suppose the stock answer of "nobody knows" will have to do, until either people start getting popcorn lung from vaping diacetyl or alternatively no one has got it by about 2023 or so (10 years after the start of massive consumption of creamy refills in RBAs). Then we'll know )