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

[Kent C]

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."

The whole point was that if someone saw your post and repeated it. It happens you know. So it is incumbent for use to get the facts right, unlike the people who are attempting to ban or severely limit ecigarettes, who have been as blatantly sloppy with the facts. And as far as vendors - 'many' doesn't equal 'most'. And also the 'highest amount' of 495 times safe amounts could have only been one tested - not every eliquid or even most.

Again, if you're concerned about diacetyl, the do what is necessary for you to be what you consider to be safe. But don't skew the facts, in order to overly justify your own decision.

 

[Kent C]

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 )

Good questions! - esp. the first one where the direct, near undiluted (except for other components of course) inhalation would seem to be much greater than 'factory workers' or popcorn enthusiasts. I suspect a 'mesothelioma effect' going on. I don't know if the lawyers promote that in the UK like they do here, but it's a constant tv commercial in these parts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/opinion/nocera-the-asbestos-scam.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/opinion/nocera-the-asbestos-scam-part-2.html

 

[SmokinRabbit]

The whole point was that if someone saw your post and repeated it. It happens you know. So it is incumbent for use to get the facts right, unlike the people who are attempting to ban or severely limit ecigarettes, who have been as blatantly sloppy with the facts. And as far as vendors - 'many' doesn't equal 'most'. And also the 'highest amount' of 495 times safe amounts could have only been one tested - not every eliquid or even most.

Again, if you're concerned about diacetyl, the do what is necessary for you to be what you consider to be safe. But don't skew the facts, in order to overly justify your own decision.

I admitted to mis-speaking, but where is your admission? My statement was actually way more accurate than yours, so don't be jumping on me for spreading false information. The information I shared wasn't wrong in either case actually... it was just that I made a small mistake in the numbers.

You actually made the statement "cigs have 100 times more diacetyl than ecigs." which is just flat-out wrong, and you pulled a quote to prove it, but only PART of the quote, so in fact it looks like you were being intentionally misleading to justify your position way more than I was.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that ISN'T what you were doing, but you just missed the information in front of you. It's fine. At the end of the day we all want the same thing... Information from research that is accurate, and information that leads to safer vaping for all of us. To argue otherwise is just silly. I've got no agenda here other than wanting to be informed as best I can be so I can make the most informed decisions possible. I'm sure you want that too.

What I was saying earlier was merely to defend my position that it isn't alarmist to be worried about a study like this. It isn't alarmist to be worried about the fact that some of the results of this research showed a whole lot more diacetyl than cigarettes (by a large margin) in SOME juices, and showed it in some juices claiming not to have it at all.

I'm also not the person who started this post to begin with, just to be clear.

 

[SmokinRabbit]

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 )

Great questions!

Actually, I think there was some research on the smokers part... from what I read (and I can't find the link now of course), the ones who got popcorn lung to begin with, the ones in the popcorn factory, were indeed pretty heavy smokers. Which begs the question, is diacetyl even more dangerous -- or most dangerous? -- to people who have had a history of smoking.

That's an important question for the vaping community!

 

[Kent C]

I admitted to mis-speaking, but where is your admission? My statement was actually way more accurate than yours, so don't be jumping on me for spreading false information. The information I shared wasn't wrong in either case actually... it was just that I made a small mistake in the numbers.

You actually made the statement "cigs have 100 times more diacetyl than ecigs." which is just flat-out wrong, and you pulled a quote to prove it, but only PART of the quote, so in fact it looks like you were being intentionally misleading to justify your position way more than I was.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that ISN'T what you were doing, but you just missed the information in front of you. It's fine. At the end of the day we all want the same thing... Information from research that is accurate, and information that leads to safer vaping for all of us. To argue otherwise is just silly. I've got no agenda here other than wanting to be informed as best I can be so I can make the most informed decisions possible. I'm sure you want that too.

What I was saying earlier was merely to defend my position that it isn't alarmist to be worried about a study like this. It isn't alarmist to be worried about the fact that some of the results of this research showed a whole lot more diacetyl than cigarettes (by a large margin) in SOME juices, and showed it in some juices claiming not to have it at all.

I'm also not the person who started this post to begin with, just to be clear.

I didn't "miss" the quote - I just pointed out how you did. It didn't have anything to do with cigarettes, but with what was considered as safety levels - I actually read the report and recounted what it said about cigarettes.

You actually made the statement "cigs have 100 times more diacetyl than ecigs." which is just flat-out wrong.

Wrong? If you have a problem with that, take it up with Dr. F who originally stated it, and who I quoted exactly regarding cigarettes. Compare my quote to the study - it's exact - a simply cut and paste.

IF you had mentioned 'safety levels' rather than cigarettes, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

 

[sonicdsl]

The argument ends here:

---

Now let's try continuing the discussion please. If you want to debate/argue semantics, take it to PM or the Outside.


Thank you

 

[Kent C]

................

 

[bigdancehawk]

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.

I received the following response today:

We trust our Flavoring Source, but I cannot guarantee you, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are telling us the truth. We use a very large, very reputable source, so I doubt that is the case. If you are very concerned, stay away from Buttery Popcorn and Butterscotch. After much research, those are the two flavors that were mentioned most often.



I guess I'll leave it at that, but I don't see why they can't ask their "Flavoring Source" for some evidence.

 

[meda_dro]

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 )

Great questions. I believe the answer to 1) is the following:

A differential diagnosis of a patient complaining of shortness of breath, coughing, etc. will not lead towards bronchiolitis obliterans (BO) if they're a smoker. Environmental factors and being a non-smoker are common prerequisites for investigating for BO specifically. The symptoms and gross pathology of BO are all a subset of those covered under the common COPD diagnosis (COPD being the third-leading cause of death here in the US). In other words, it could be the case that many smokers have been affected by diketones via cigarette smoking but there hasn't been an impetus to quantify what role diketones play in destroying the lungs of smokers of diacetyl-enriched tobacco.

Also, http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.200706-837ED

Regardless, I think we should avoid diacetyl in our flavorings for now, and vendors should release DA or AP testing results to back up their claims of DA and AP free.

DBLiquids has said they are in the process of doing just that http://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_...e_bunny_eliquid_to_enthalpy/ckbos7k?context=3

Suicide Bunny has not provided testing results, but are currently being tested by a concerned vaper:
http://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_..._sent_some_suicide_bunny_eliquid_to_enthalpy/

MBV has not responded to requests for testing results and rely on flavor manufacturer's MSDS:
http://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/comments/2fqohl/mbv_blue_moo/ckcl13b?context=3

I kind of wish I didn't name specific vendors, but I don't know how else to hold them accountable, and to find one that does independent testing. If there are some, please let me know.

 

[Kurt]

This may be of interest to people. NicVape has a new DA- and AP-free line of flavors, verified with COAs:

E-Flavors by NicVape DIY Flavor Concentrates

I have tried a few of them, and they are pretty good. They have been working with a large flavor manufacturer to create this line.

 

[pamdis]

As soon as they take the age verification off of EVERY SINGLE page change, I'll consider buying some

 

[Kurt]

As soon as they take the age verification off of EVERY SINGLE page change, I'll consider buying some

That is not happening for me. Just once when first entering the site.

 

[Kent C]

That is not happening for me. Just once when first entering the site.

Me neither, although I had to input date on the Nictrace link as well. Once done - free access to the rest of the site.... even now, I just checked again and it still had that cookie

 

[Katya]

As soon as they take the age verification off of EVERY SINGLE page change, I'll consider buying some

Happens to me every single time I change category--or try to access individual e-liquid like Cappuccino... PITA!!!!!

 

[Scarab]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have to ask a stupid question. When these studies are released, why are we not shown a full list of the sources from which they purchased the samples?

 

[Kent C]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have to ask a stupid question. When these studies are released, why are we not shown a full list of the sources from which they purchased the samples?

Probably, the best answer...

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-dr-farsalinos-new-study-18.html#post13699950

 

[meda_dro]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have to ask a stupid question. When these studies are released, why are we not shown a full list of the sources from which they purchased the samples?

I think that's because they want to avoid singling out specific vendors but still inform the public that it's a widespread problem.

Also, I believe they have received crowd sourced funding from both concerned vapers and vendors.

EDIT: Above post is probably more accurate.

 

[Nate760]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have to ask a stupid question. When these studies are released, why are we not shown a full list of the sources from which they purchased the samples?

Pretty simple, really. If you only test the worst-quality product from the worst-quality manufacturer, and don't bother telling anyone that, it's much easier to produce conclusions that perfectly conform to the narrative you've already decided to promulgate.

 

[sonicdsl]

Pretty simple, really. If you only test the worst-quality product from the worst-quality manufacturer, and don't bother telling anyone that, it's much easier to produce conclusions that perfectly conform to the narrative you've already decided to promulgate.

Settle down, that's not the case here, and it was explained in the linked thread Kent gave. Roly's points:

It would be extremely difficult for Dr Farsalinos to reveal the names of the contaminated products, even the most toxic products. What he could do on the other hand is name the products that he found to be contaminate-free. I don't see any problem with that.

Of course, this sort of testing is exactly the sort of thing that the consumer associations should be doing. That is their purpose in life: to protect the consumer. We now have the proof that the community can easily raise funds for this sort of project, therefore if one of the community associations steps up and says:
- We want to raise $20,000 for e-liquid testing
- We will specifically test for known toxic contaminants such as DEG, DA and AP
- We will name all of the products in our report
- We will provide full details of how each sample measured up and name names

...then I think they will (a) be able to raise the funds; (b) perform an extremely valuable service to the community; and (c) force the trade to do a whole lot better. Vendors who get a bad report will see their sales drop and that is exactly how it should be.

This is not Dr F's responsibility as he is pursuing the science, and is not in a position to take on the responsibility of defending his actions. This is the job of consumer associations and they need to step up. Dr F has shown the way.

In Dr Farsalinos' place, I would do the same: not name the the contaminated products.

You should be aware by now that my position is that vendors should be held to account on this and any other equally serious issue, since the quality and safety of inhalation products seems an important issue to me (though I respect the fact some simply don't care, and should be allowed to choose accordingly); so the reasons for this non-disclosure are significant. You will have to ask him to defend his actions here, not me, and as you funded the research then you do have the right to ask.

On the other hand I see no reason why he should not name the good-quality products.

It is better if scientists don't get involved in hand-to-hand fights, which is certainly what the result of revealing the offenders will create. Imagine if you have a major e-liquid business and are accused of supplying toxic products - would you do nothing and accept the sales crash? Maybe - and maybe not. Maybe you would attack the person who revealed the issue.

Scientists are better off pursuing the science and assisting others to fight the battles that result. And there would certainly be a few battles if he named the offenders.

This is the job of community/consumer associations or standards associations - not someone who has tried to help, and will inevitably receive a number of brickbats if he goes any further. He will be contacting the vendors of the toxic products and giving them the results. If you want a public naming and shaming then ask your consumer org to do that for you: it's their job, and we now know they can raise the funds to do it in no time at all.

If I were still involved with a consumer group I'd start to move on this as we now have (a) the information from Dr F that this is something that needs addressing, and (b) the knowledge that funds can be specifically raised for this purpose immediately. Ask your consumer reps what plans they have, and if not - why not.

This is a fight for consumer groups not the whistleblower.

 

[SmokinRabbit]

...

DBLiquids has said they are in the process of doing just that http://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_...e_bunny_eliquid_to_enthalpy/ckbos7k?context=3

Suicide Bunny has not provided testing results, but are currently being tested by a concerned vaper:
http://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_..._sent_some_suicide_bunny_eliquid_to_enthalpy/

MBV has not responded to requests for testing results and rely on flavor manufacturer's MSDS:
http://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/comments/2fqohl/mbv_blue_moo/ckcl13b?context=3

I kind of wish I didn't name specific vendors, but I don't know how else to hold them accountable, and to find one that does independent testing. If there are some, please let me know.

I don't think we should be fearful of talking about specific vendors. If there is going to be accountability, like you said, then obviously we need to be able to talk about them!

However, I do think we should all approach it with a level head... in other words, just because a vendor's juice might end up containing diacetyl even though they said it didn't... that doesn't necessarily make them liars and cheats. I've mentioned it before in another thread, there's a whole lot of reasons diacetyl might show up in fluids from vendors that claimed it wasn't there, like miscommunication and/or trusting their suppliers.

What we should all be doing is encouraging our favorite vendors to do their own testing, and to publish the results. Sort of like when you shop for food items online you can read the nutritional label... there should be a safety/test results label for ejuice.