As I stated before, I trust Kurt as a chemist to say that these products are safe for us to vape. To call his education and judgement "Mickey Mouse", well I dont think I have to finish this statement...
-
Need help from former MFS (MyFreedomSmokes) customers
Has any found a supplier or company that has tobacco e-juice like or very similar to MFS Turbosmog, Tall Paul, or Red Luck?
View thread
American E-Liquid Manufacturers' Standards Association launches
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
As I stated before, I trust Kurt as a chemist to say that these products are safe for us to vape. To call his education and judgement "Mickey Mouse", well I dont think I have to finish this statement...
You can read my comments however you like, but that's not what I meant at all. Perhaps you should finish your statement and tell me where I mentioned the safety of vaping food colorings?
Why are artificial food colorings in eliquid?
Then I misconstrued your comment for calling their system of standards a mickey mouse operation. I was not going to say anything about food coloring safety.
IF that is the case then lets see the SCIENCE on regular Ejuice and additives , does it exist ?? can we compare it to WTA ? to date ( and I have not done a complete google survey ) I have NOT seen any Empirical scientific data or tests that show what all these different additives do or how they react while vaping them .
To me if you call one bad you need to call ALL bad UNTIL they are proven safe ( this is what the FDA does , well sometimes !!!! )
My Opinion only
I only know that if one day I get emphysema, lung cancer, whatever, I'm going to blame my 37 years of smoking cigarettes and thank God for vaping making my final years happier, healthier and more enjoyable.
I hope attitudes like this are few and far between. It's about picking battles at this point. What will be easier to classify safe? It sort of bothers me that a vendor is throwing this attitude out. What are you going to do if/when the FDA says "juice is safe but that stupid big battery mod isn't"?
A vendor of all people should be working to fix things that they find wrong...not slamming them on forums. You posts here won't help as much as your participation. You don't even do juice, right? Why get so worked up here?
WOW! Ummm that kind of comment would really have me rushing to buy your gear! Its kind of scary when a Forum Supplier has that kind of outlook.
And I am sure that is not just my opinion!
I believe Kurt said he didnt know about the safety of vaping colorings or WTAs. He was not included in the voting when they decided on one and not the other.
i kind of agree with buzzkill here. the fda's approach is to assume something might be dangerous to ingest/inhale/etc until they can classify it as GRAS (food) or benefits outweigh the risks/side effects (drugs), etc. so why is this organization arbitrarily "banning" caffeine and WTA but not food coloring? have they conducted scientific experiments that have proven the former to be bad and the latter to be good? i dont believe they have, so it appears to me that they are simply going on what's easiest for them. many eliquid manufacturers use food coloring. far fewer manufacturers use caffeine and WTA. coincidence or laziness? i dont claim to be a chemist or a scientist or know what is best for you, however THEY ARE making that claim by drawing a line in the sand as to what is allowed and what isn't. without knowing for sure, i personally would rather vape WTA than food coloring and quite frankly in the mornings, i'd rather vape caffeine than food coloring. bottomline, food coloring serves no purpose other than to make liquids look different. i think we can all agree that if they are making arbitrary decisions without the science to back it up, food coloring should have been the first thing on the list to be "banned".
i wasnt implying that in the slightest and you know it. i was simply pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of the statement "the tobacco industry has very strict guidelines" and that the FDA is in the pockets of major corporations. in other words there is a conflict of interest and the government doesn't always make consumer safety their top priority.
+10
Very valid points brought up by BuzzKill and explained deeper by Filter.
After having finally listened to the podcast, your point certainly seems valid.
But I wonder if the level of standards acceptable to the FDA would ever accommodate such examples.
I'm pretty sure there is no way any final set of standards would.
So I guess the question is, where does that leave us?
That's my question. We don't know whether the FDA standards would be more or less restrictive than what AEMSA proposes. I've made a very good living negotiating for 20 years, and the one lesson I've learned is to not show your cards first. Find out what the other guy wants because it may be less than you think.
I think there should be layers of standards dependent on the size of the operation or a single set of standards on juice purity and contents rather than the condition under which the juice is produced. Someone in their kitchen with freshly washed mixing equipment, a hair net, and a pair of gloves may be able to produce something just as clean as at Johnson Creek.
The tobacco industry *does* have very strict guidelines. The process, chemicals and manufacture of their products is quite well known and controlled. The end product may be very bad for you but it's quite well known and tightly controlled with strict guidelines to follow.
Do you disagree with that? That was the point I thought was being made.
I believe there are going to be multiple areas that a group like AEMSA might address. Most importantly, in my opinion, would be procedures and guidelines for manufacture of eLiquids. Another, perhaps just as important, might be content of the product itself. Maybe they should be addressed individually. That might be part of the evolution.
Guidelines for the manufacturing environment, chemicals used, sterilization, contamination controls, batch control and tracking, date stamps, ingredient labeling, etc., etc.,
If the product itself is addressed then fine. I would like to see different certifications or levels of certification under an umbrella.
The idea is to have a process, standards and measure that is well defined and can be verified. Looks like AEMSA has come up with a starting point. I would hope and expect it to evolve as (and if) it grows and gains momentum.
AEMSA can only become effective by growing their membership. That would be manufacturers and maybe vendors.
Manufactuers/vendors will join or participate if they see some value in it (yes, surprise, those entities are primarily driven by profit. There may be non-profit ones but I don't think it's by choice).
Manufacturers/vendors will see value in it if it increases sales, or extends the future of their business, or expands their market.
Increased sales will happen IF customers are more inclined to buy from "certified" vendors.
The market may expand IF new customers enter (when they didn't before) because it looks to be organized, "regulated", with some standards and safeguards in place.
Future might look more stable if self regulation is occurring to some set of known criteria and is fairly wide spread.
I may be mistaken but I didn't think the AEMSA standard was a completely done deal and set in perpetuity. I'm pretty sure they said it was meant to be a living document and evolve? That evolution is going to come directly or indirectly from their membership or lack thereof.
For the WTA thing. My understanding is that they excluded it because they could not verify the particular chemicals and process for extracting it? Looks like that could change with Aroma's participation? There might be other reasons. One might be that it's more stuff from tobacco. I believe PG and VG are pretty well known quantities (maybe not vaped but outside of that they're pretty well understood). I believe nicotine is a pretty well known quantity. One consideration might be the issue of when you extract more things from tobacco (WTA for example) when do you cross the line to a liquified cigarette/tobacco? Maybe there is some of that related to staying out of the FDA's immediate sights or not providing them that leverage to gain control right away. NOTE: all that is just my speculation. probably shouldn't have mixed it in.
Food coloring? What? I remember something about red dye number something or other some time ago but... is the FDA on a mission against food coloring now? I haven't done my complete google analysis yet either (actually I was thinking about the Holiday Inn Express in order to become a chemist).
Last edited:
does aemsa know exactly which chemicals are used to extract/refine "regular" nicotine? (not WTA)
if an american company uses nic from China, do they know what chemicals the chinese nic is extracted with?
if an american company uses nic from China, do they know what chemicals the chinese nic is extracted with?
Last edited:
I must have missed that. If true, it means it's all about the chemicals with WTA but was voted on without the Chemist?!
I don't think they are addressing foreign manufacturers. If nicotine is used as an ingredient here then it could meet some standard through spot checking? Maybe purity or something like that? With WTA I don't know ... I'm not a chemist and that's part of the point.
I'm not clear on what exactly is contained in WTA and if that might be effected by how it's extracted or if there are different methods of extraction with one more prone to contamination or the possibility of residuals from the extraction or whatever. But that's just from my (consumer) point of view.
I think the point is that if there was a standard and some certification of compliance I would have something to reference. Anything is more than we have now. It's the documented, verifiable process, standards, and verification that I think is most important and a huge step in the right direction. And you're not going to come up with the perfect, all encompassing, solution on the very first pass. You just need a barely acceptable start that can be grown and improved from there. I think the question should be if the AEMSA charter allows for/accomodates that.
One thing I would really like to see vendors start doing is putting a shelf life / expiration date on juice bottles. I make all my own juice and have, on occasion, received flavoring that went bad after a few weeks. After that I contacted some of the manufacturers about shelf life of the flavoring itself and most say it's around 9 months to a year. If the flavoring can expire like that, the juice can as well, right?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
