American E-Liquid Manufacturers' Standards Association launches

[Quick1]

For those that haven't listened to the show start at about 1 hour.

After listening to the podcast there appears to be little doubt the WTA issue has little to nothing to do with science and much to do with bias to the extreme. It is quite clear members or the board have strong opinions on WTA, and I would add irrational opinions, they have carried over to AEMSA.

Maybe...

They both say they haven't looked into the science behind WTAs. They both say "show me the science" that WTAs are not significantly harmful. They said over and over again they are against it until someone shows them the numbers. Sounds to me like they are open to listening and being presented the numbers? I kind of agree with that.

They also bring up the issue of "when does your liquid equate to a cigarette"?
This issue might have more than one side to it. There could be a physical/scientific side and there could also be a perception side. It's like getting legislation accepted. You might have to give up some to get most of what you want.

Just for example (purely example mind you).
What if you could get e-liquid validated/accepted/approved without WTA.
What if you insisted on WTA inclusion you get ALL e-liquid disapproved/illegal/controlled/whatever.

What would you do?

I'd certainly factor the stats into my decision.
What percentage of people use/need WTAs to get off of cigarettes?
What is the magnitude of overall gain relative to the loss?
If you were to get general acceptance of e-liquid without WTA don't you think it might be easier to try to work in WTA later?

 

[Quick1]

I am a little confused as I keep hearing people talk about wta as an additive. Wta stands for whole tobacco alkaloids. I was one of the first ones to test wta that Dvap made before it was sold to the public. I am not a chemist but have asked many questions of Dvap. The way I understand it is that wta is the full spectrum of alkaloids that naturally occur in tobacco. The way I think of it is not that it is added but instead that its not left out like it is in regular liquids that contain only one alkaloid being nicotine although nicotine has the highest concentration of the alkaloids in tobacco.

Right. The main question is whether WTAs are harmful and to what extent.
(maybe a side issue of what might be introduced in the extraction process -- I understand it may be different than extracting only nicotine.)

I don't think it's true that it's solely the combustion of tobacco that produces the harmful effects. What if you could liquify tobacco without removing ANYTHING? I think that's the issue/debate. If you extract pure nicotine it's known not to be harmful (addictive yes, harmful when handled in some concentration yes, harmful when vaped no). How much more and what can you extract before it's "too" harmful?

Again, I think the line you draw could be different in a purely scientific context than in a regulatory/acceptance context.

 

[hittman]

Quick, I think you would be surprised how many people need wta's. Many like myself use snus to get them. I think if you asked around that you'd be surprised how many are supplementing their vaping with snus, snuff, wta liquid or even cigarettes. I'm not against this new organization. I just think that many need something else and some don't want to use tobacco. Wta liquids can fill that gap.

One other question that has gone thru my mind many times is how safe is vaping in itself. I don't think its been around long enough to know the long term affects. I do know that in the past 3.5 years that my breathing has improved and I can run and workout harder than I have in years. Out of that time, I've used snus for about three years and have used wta on and off for about two. I haven't noticed any adverse effects in that time. I think I'm leading this thread off topic and apologize for that.

 

[X P3 Flight Engineer]

The way I see it (not necessarily the way it is):

Nicotine, PG, and VG can be obtained in USP grade. That is a certified level of purity.

PG, VG, and coloring are generally regarded as safe.

WTA is not available (at this time) in USP grade and is not something generally regarded as safe.

*****

The "bathroom sink" was a poor phrase to use when their intention was to state that hands must be washed before entering the lab area. Really poor choice of words is all.

*****

The standards reflect the equipment we have to work with now, at a minimum.

Personally, I avoid coloring if I can, I can't always. I avoid plastic bottles if I can, I can't always. So, although I would prefer not to use them, I can see where glass bottles and no coloring could not be set as a minimum standard at this time.

*****

People in this thread seem to consider the certification as pertaining to a vendor. I take it to be more pertaining to the product. A vendor could sell certified juice (produced in certified facilities) even though they were not a member. Otherwise, Walmart would have to be a member to sell juice that they didn't produce? That doesn't make sense to me.

Several small vendors could share the cost of a single certified facility to produce their own brand of juice without all of them being members.

The way I see it (not necessarily the way it is) Lol!

 

[oldsoldier]

@XP3 I'm glad to see a voice of reason.

It seems to me folks are getting all stirred up without looking at the specifics of this situation. I'd be more concerned about a trade organization that reportedly is lobbying for only prefilled cartos to be allowed, than one that is on the fence about WTA.

 

[Quick1]

Quick, I think you would be surprised how many people need wta's. Many like myself use snus to get them. I think if you asked around that you'd be surprised how many are supplementing their vaping with snus, snuff, wta liquid or even cigarettes. I'm not against this new organization. I just think that many need something else and some don't want to use tobacco. Wta liquids can fill that gap.

No, I don't know how many need/use wta's. WTAs outside of e-liquid are not in scope here. I did assume the percentage of users requiring/wanting WTA in their e-liquid was small. The point was that if a small part of what you're going for might greatly reduce your chance of getting most of it then it might be prudent to consider conceding (at least temporarily) the small part.

 

[Stubby]

And if you listen to this podcast, which happens to be a conversation between the Vice President and Treasurer of AEMSA (but long before AEMSA existed) it's a little difficult to believe that a preexisting prejudice hasn't been carried over.

http://www.vaporcast.com/index.php?...st/podcast+(VaporCast)&utm_content=FeedBurner

They both say they haven't looked into the science behind WTAs. They both say "show me the science" that WTAs are not significantly harmful. They said over and over again they are against it until someone shows them the numbers. Sounds to me like they are open to listening and being presented the numbers? I kind of agree with that.

Just for example (purely example mind you).
What if you could get e-liquid validated/accepted/approved without WTA.
What if you insisted on WTA inclusion you get ALL e-liquid disapproved/illegal/controlled/whatever.

What would you do?

I'd certainly factor the stats into my decision.
What percentage of people use/need WTAs to get off of cigarettes?
What is the magnitude of overall gain relative to the loss?
If you were to get general acceptance of e-liquid without WTA don't you think it might be easier to try to work in WTA later?

That's an awful lot of what ifs, and all of it bogus. They, and I assume you, are letting your fear run away and rule the day. For those that do need WTA I would guess you would get a middle digit for that nonsense. They (and you) are playing manipulative games with peoples lives. Truth is it sounds far more like something coming from the ANTZ then someone involved with harm reduction.

Decades of studies on smokeless tobacco has shown that the minor alkaloids are not the problem. There is a good case to be made that WTA is less risky then standard liquid. Many people are reporting using far less liquid then they had without WTA. They don't find themselves chained to their PV and can actually put it down. That has to be a good thing. It is certainly less risky for those that need the WTA as their risk of going back to cigarettes is very likely much less.

They also bring up the issue of "when does your liquid equate to a cigarette"?
This issue might have more than one side to it. There could be a physical/scientific side and there could also be a perception side. It's like getting legislation accepted. You might have to give up some to get most of what you want.

To the question of when does e-liquid equate to a cigarette, the answer is never. One involves combustion and the other is a vapor. That doesn't change with WTA. What there opinions do show is a lack of understanding of what tobacco harm reduction is. They mentioned that WTA and cigarettes are essentially the same (or at least closer), the only difference being the method of delivery. Of course they are right, but where their ignorance shows is that they assume that is bad. The reality is that the method of delivery is what tobacco harm reduction is all about. It shows a lack of a fundamental understanding of tobacco harm reduction. The delivery method makes all the difference in the world as far as risk goes. With the ignorance they have shown these are not the type people I would want as leaders of the industry.

Edit: This showed up while I was writing the above and just couldn't resist.

o, I don't know how many need/use wta's. WTAs outside of e-liquid are not in scope here. I did assume the percentage of users requiring/wanting WTA in their e-liquid was small. The point was that if a small part of what you're going for might greatly reduce your chance of getting most of it then it might be prudent to consider conceding (at least temporarily) the small part.

So it appears you are the one who is going to decide who will be sacrificed for the greater good.

 

[Adam the Aussie]

PG, VG, and coloring are generally regarded as safe.

I really don't see the safety of vaping artificial colorings being the issue. I'll ask the question again, why are food colorings in eliquid? What purpose do they serve?

How do you think Big Tobacco would go if they went to the FDA and said we're going to sell flouro pink and green cigarettes?

 

[oldsoldier]

It took almost a year and a half for the US Constitution to get ratified and go into effect. (well actually what 9 months 4 days to be ratified, and it went into effect almost 6 months later) Luckily the ECF membership wasn't around to debate it or we would still be thinking about writing the bill of rights after getting the constitution ratified by 2020.

Don't forget AEMSA is a new organization and also a TRADE organization. I'm just thrilled that they are going with the transparency and community input business model. But in the end the community needs to realize they are still a TRADE organization.

 

[Iffy]

I'd be more concerned about a trade organization that reportedly is lobbying for only prefilled cartos to be allowed

Apples...

... than one that is on the fence about WTA.

... oranges!

 

[oldsoldier]

fruit. it is all related. why swat flies when the elephants are charging?

Focusing on WTA and raising cain over something that is likely to be cleared up before long is silly when other organizations are going after bottled liquids entirely.

 

[metalhd]

I think this is a HUGE step in non vapers, and the general population to understand that the E cigarette, and vaping community, isn't just a group that is using products with out research, and regulation. I read the press release, and it gave me a great respect for the people who set up this organization, and I see it as a stepping stone for less ridicule by the general population.
On another note, it give me confidence as a buyer, that I know major e liquid companies will be performing by this standard, and I think it is a great way to make us more aware of what we are vaping, instead of having to take the companies word for it, or trial and error.
All in all, great job guys!

What he said!

 

[Huffelpuff]

If I read the site correctly, there is a monthly fee for vendors of some $500/month. Won't that put a number of small businesses out of business? My other concern is if we have people who enforce what is safe for me to vape, will they use their collective power to advocate against selling higher mg of nicotine for DIY? Why would juice manufacturers want me to DIY?

I can see arguments for and against but feel that this is a slippery slope. No disrespect intended but I feel like this will hurt the community.

 

[oldsoldier]

If I read the site correctly, there is a monthly fee for vendors of some $500/month. Won't that put a number of small businesses out of business? My other concern is if we have people who enforce what is safe for me to vape, will they use their collective power to advocate against selling higher mg of nicotine for DIY? Why would juice manufacturers want me to DIY?

I can see arguments for and against but feel that this is a slippery slope. No disrespect intended but I feel like this will hurt the community.

It is a voluntary organization huffel. So no it won't put anyone out of business. The only people with the power to put a supplier out of business are the state local and federal authorities, and of course the suppliers themselves by not catering to their client base.

 

[Quick1]

That's an awful lot of what ifs,

apparently I really suck at getting my thoughts across because you completely missed the point (every single one of them)

 

[Huffelpuff]

Thanks for your reply, oldsoldier. So this is voluntary and will not be a requirement in order to maintain vendor status on ECF?

 

[oldsoldier]

Thanks for your reply, oldsoldier. So this is voluntary and will not be a requirement in order to maintain vendor status on ECF?

You are correct. ECF does not require membership in AEMSA or any other organization as part of acceptance as a registered supplier.

 

[Huffelpuff]

Thank you for helping me to understand this. I feel a bit better about the association knowing that it won't squeeze the smaller vendors off of the forum.

 

[kwalka]

If I read the site correctly, there is a monthly fee for vendors of some $500/month. Won't that put a number of small businesses out of business? My other concern is if we have people who enforce what is safe for me to vape, will they use their collective power to advocate against selling higher mg of nicotine for DIY? Why would juice manufacturers want me to DIY?

I can see arguments for and against but feel that this is a slippery slope. No disrespect intended but I feel like this will hurt the community.

They also specifically said there is no limit on the nic content for DIY.

 

[Huffelpuff]

Thanks Kwalka and OldSoldier.