American E-Liquid Manufacturers' Standards Association launches

[Scott_Simpson]

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.

This is a very good idea in principle. My concern is, regardless of the "voluntary" nature of the organization, once it gets established, won't there be a stigma attached to any juice maker who is NOT a member, even if the reason is simply economic? Just because a lab is small, and may not be able to afford the monthly membership fees, does not mean that their products are, ipso facto, unsafe. But, if they aren't a member, won't they get tarred with that brush?

 

[Quick1]

This is a very good idea in principle. My concern is, regardless of the "voluntary" nature of the organization, once it gets established, won't there be a stigma attached to any juice maker who is NOT a member, even if the reason is simply economic? Just because a lab is small, and may not be able to afford the monthly membership fees, does not mean that their products are, ipso facto, unsafe. But, if they aren't a member, won't they get tarred with that brush?

I don't think it would. Can you think of any other industry where that's happened?
It's not the case with the aftermarket auto parts industry for example.

I would see it as:
Certification means that you have met the certification standards.
Not having a certification does not imply that you don't (or failed to) meet the standards.
So it would fall entirely to the individual consumer what value they put on a company getting that certification.

Note: I don't think membership == certification. I believe AEMSA said that none of their members are currently certified to their standard?

 

[sonicdsl]

@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.

Exactly. I'm cautiously optimistic about AEMSA atm, and will watch how they change & grow over the next few weeks/months. They seem to be listening, and participating (with obviously mixed results) with the community. However, I'm fairly concerned about what TVECA are doing, as they seem to believe pre-filled carts and 2 flavors is sufficient, as far as I can tell from their propaganda (though much of it is dated). I really believe TVECA doesn't have the community's interest at heart, at all.

Sent from my Galaxy Tab with Tapatalk2

 

[hittman]

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.

There's no reason for me to concede. Snus is legal. At least for now anyway. I do enjoy wta liquid but can do without it. More than anything I was just sharing my experience with wta liquid.

 

[DC2]

If this organization achieves their goals of representing their members in front of the FDA to influence regulations, they WILL be speaking for all of us, so let's just put that bit of nonsense to rest. They can say they represent their membership all day long, but if there are no other organizations to fend for us, then they will be the closest thing we have to someone representing us.

Now the question becomes, if they are speaking for all of us, will they get it right?

Well, we need to wait and see in my opinion. And we need to keep making our voices heard. And we need to keep an eye on them. And we need to see what level of transparency they operate under. And we need to see how much the listen, how much they hear, and how they react.

The whole thing will be for naught if they don't get our support. They can never, ever, ever speak with a louder voice than TVECA or even SFATA without the full backing of this community. So if they know what's good for them, and for us, they will listen to us and do their very best to be as inclusive as they can possibly be.

Otherwise they are nothing more than a paper tiger that need not concern us.

 

[Kelemvor]

after 79 pages i only ask: is the food coloring still on their Table? if they still defend it, they can go elsewhere with their standards in my opinion.

 

[meli.]

Having watched the Interview, read the Website, the Thread, we have two arguments, one being Membership the other being the Standard, what's missing are the Terms. Nowhere on the AEMSA site is this information to be found. I would ask the AEMSA Board to seriously consider the following if they are to be an All Inclusive Transparent Organisation:

Membership:
All Mfrs need to be part of this association therefore what is needed is a small annual payment which would allow such Mfrs to receive newsletters, invitations to trade events, knowledge that they where represented by an All Inclusive Trade Association.
This Membership fee would also allow them to receive up to date Association Procedures and Standards.
If these members believe their product conforms to these procedures and standards then they may advertise this on their website /packaging.

Accreditation/ Certification:
When members believe their product requires accreditation /certification they then pay the Association for their product and procedures to be Verified. Once verified the Mfr may advertise on their website/ packaging that they are accredited /certified.
These mfrs would also need to pay an annual fee for ongoing verification to maintain such status.

Transparency:
The Association needs to be above all else Transparent with its members in it's accounting and reporting of information.
This means representing Everybody and telling them what AEMSA are doing and with whom and where Their money is being Spent.
The Variable Membership level achieves the Inclusivity and the payments for accreditation moves towards transparency, as members are only paying for what they need and the Small are Not Supporting the Large.
Further Transparency is achieved through the reporting functions showing what's being done in the interest of the members and how much everything costs.

Special Issues:
Normally in any Trade Association the inclusion of Contentious products or processes are handled by the forming of a Working Group to consider the issues and make recommendations to the Members.
For instance, the inclusion of standards and procedures for WTA would be handled in this manner for the Full Membership to decide if WTA Mfrs would be welcome in the Association. The current Members are the Founders and their Primary task should be the creation of an All Inclusive Association and hold themselves above Reproach.
This again makes everything transparent and inclusive as we do not have the Executive Board making arbitrary decisions as to who is in and who is kept out.
I would also ask AEMSA to expand on how negative votes are dealt with, in what manner bias and commercial interests would be managed without prejudicing a Mfr's Commercial Interest?

Management:
It is Vitally Important that the Association is initially staffed by Unpaid volunteers only.
This precludes any accusation that the Association is merely created for the benefit of a select few Founders and Their associates.
Once the Association is established and at the first national conference, conference delegates should be given the right to agree for Paid Employees to be engaged and to select an Oversight Committee.

Cash Flow:
The annual subscription from all members should enable the Association to create and maintain a Website and to publish their standards and procedures and lists of accredited members. This funding should also allow for newsletters to be sent to members and to host an annual conference.
This subscription revenue should also be used to part fund a National Advertising and Educational Programme together with any Lobbying required at Federal Level.
The fees obtained for Accreditation /Certification are to be used primarily for those functions but should also contribute substantially to Advertising and Educational Programmes.

Conclusion:
This overall approach brings Everybody together with a Common Goal and experience has shown that most Mfrs will migrate to certified level once they believe that the business case has been properly justified.
New Mfrs and small organisations can be kept in the loop at a fairly insignificant cost and this serves two purposes namely the association will know who all the Mfrs are and will then be able to focus on bringing these smaller organisations to accredited level.

I am by no means telling AEMSA how to run their Association, but valid arguments have been made across this thread some of which I don't agree with but see merit, although I am whole heartedly supportive of Standards and Vendors/Mfrs following such protocols I would ask AEMSA to clarify their terms on their website and offer more Detailed information other than what is currently presented.

 

[SissySpike]

In my opinion AEMSA is being transparent I give them a big thumbs up for that. It seems to me they are on the right tract so join them help them form a positive organization. That stops government interference, and promotes consistent quality in e liquid. Both agendas are a good thing. We are up against Very big money! Tobacco and taxes. Cigarettes do not cost 5 to 8$ a pack to make. This is a tax we've allowed the government to add to the price of cigarettes. They lose x amount of money each time one of us quit smoking and start Vaping. So it seems logical to me the next target for revenue is is us! We are all aware that Lobbyist and Big business control our government.
Ok if my eliquid has to go up 25 cents I can live with that but if the feds get a hold of it it will go up dollars! We give them more money to screw us! Where dose all the money go for the taxes on Cigarettes? We are talking millions each year! My hope is as people see the true nature of our current legislative system. How It affects us in such a negative way they will become more involved in not just vaping but seeing and fighting all corrupt money controlled government that is tanking our economy and drastically ruining our quality of life!!

 

[JENerationX]

If this organization achieves their goals of representing their members in front of the FDA to influence regulations, they WILL be speaking for all of us, so let's just put that bit of nonsense to rest. They can say they represent their membership all day long, but if there are no other organizations to fend for us, then they will be the closest thing we have to someone representing us.

Now the question becomes, if they are speaking for all of us, will they get it right?

Well, we need to wait and see in my opinion. And we need to keep making our voices heard. And we need to keep an eye on them. And we need to see what level of transparency they operate under. And we need to see how much the listen, how much they hear, and how they react.

The whole thing will be for naught if they don't get our support. They can never, ever, ever speak with a louder voice than TVECA or even SFATA without the full backing of this community. So if they know what's good for them, and for us, they will listen to us and do their very best to be as inclusive as they can possibly be.

Otherwise they are nothing more than a paper tiger that need not concern us.

*applause* BINGO.

 

[njay23]

At least they are trying. Right now the industry is completely unregulated. As vaping becomes more popular the government WILL start looking more closely. I think it makes sense to be prepared for that day. I said before, the government, FDA or whatever, could shut it all down with the stroke of a pen. This is a very real possibility that nobody seems worried about.
If you don't like what this organization is doing, start your own. Setup the standards you think are acceptable and omit what you don't like about AEMSA.
There NEED to be some standards, this stuff is going into our bodies. Just because it's better than smoking doesn't make it all OK.
That being said, I have a couple of vendors I use and love. Weather or not they join AMESA will have no bearing on my purchasing from them. It's a free market.

People should try to look at this on YouTube:
VPLive Vape Team Episode #44: AEMSA Speaks Out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOu2ZYA_j6o

It's a little long but it really answers many of the questions we all have

 

[throatkick]

I said before, the government, FDA or whatever, could shut it all down with the stroke of a pen. This is a very real possibility that nobody seems worried about.

It's a free market.

? .

 

[njay23]

? .

Free market meaning no vendor is being forced to do anything and as customers we can chose to buy regardless of what organization a vendor does or does not belong to. It doesn't change the fact that it could all be shutdown.

What I said was: That being said, I have a couple of vendors I use and love. Weather or not they join AMESA will have no bearing on my purchasing from them. It's a free market.

 

[xanderxman]

Vendors will not be forced to join, at least on the face of it. In reality there are many people who will stop buying from vendors that are not members. I have seen at least one post in this thread from someone who only buys from ECF approved vendors and who is to know how many people feel the same but choose not to post, not to count the new members of ECF that come in once AEMSA is established. How is AEMSA going to be any different? People can say all day long that the AEMSA seal will not affect non-member vendors but I see it differently. I will continue to buy from the same vendors I buy from now no matter if they choose to join AEMSA but how many others will base their decision on that shiny AEMSA seal?

This is a "voluntary" organization at the start but how soon will it become mandatory? Especially if AEMSA wants to represent vapers in front of the FDA.

 

[njay23]

This is a "voluntary" organization at the start but how soon will it become mandatory? Especially if AEMSA wants to represent vapers in front of the FDA.

Right, I see your concern but what is the alternative? Sooner or later, probably sooner, the FDA is going to step in and take a look at the industry. Right now vaping is in it's infancy. Most people don't even know or understand what it is. That is starting to change and as it starts to become more mainstream and the yahoos and anti-smoking nuts start making noise, the government won't be far behind. Seems to be that AEMSA is just trying to be ready for it when it happens... and it WILL happen.

Even if you don't agree with some of their ideas or ideals, I think they are just trying to protect the industry, possibly save the industry. If people don't like the AEMSA model, now is the time to try to come up with something else.

 

[Quick1]

Vendors will not be forced to join, at least on the face of it. In reality there are many people who will stop buying from vendors that are not members. I have seen at least one post in this thread from someone who only buys from ECF approved vendors and who is to know how many people feel the same but choose not to post, not to count the new members of ECF that come in once AEMSA is established. How is AEMSA going to be any different? People can say all day long that the AEMSA seal will not affect non-member vendors but I see it differently. I will continue to buy from the same vendors I buy from now no matter if they choose to join AEMSA but how many others will base their decision on that shiny AEMSA seal?

It's not a vendor organization. It's a trade organization for manufacturers/suppliers.
I suppose it could indirectly effect vendors if they limit themselves to products from only certain suppliers AND the AEMSA certification draws sales. But I don't understand your fears or need to control people only buying something over something else because it has a "shiny label" on it. I'm over 18 and, like you, I feel I'm capable of making my own informed (or uninformed) choices and finding out what the shiny label means to me, if anything. ...maybe we could force them to use a dull gray seal.

 

[xanderxman]

That is why I am vocal about my concerns. I get what they are trying to do but I have issues with some of their standards and their implementation of membership. I want to have an advocacy group defending vapers and our lifestyle. I am just not sure, as it stands, that AEMSA is that group. It comes off to me as a potential elitist group where membership will be granted by the current members and what they say goes. I couldn't care less about WTA myself but I see that many vapers care about it, so I suddenly do too.

I just want this to be an all encompassing organization and not one that excludes things solely on the fact that their charter members do not agree. If it is not unsafe then why exclude it? If a small mom and pop operation meets or exceeds all of their standards then why should monthly dues exclude them from membership? AEMSA needs to find a way to include the smaller operations that meet their standards before I will be impressed. And no, I am not saying that the other member groups should subsidise their membership but I do think they need to find a way to play nice with the smaller vendors that meet or exceed their standards but just can't afford to join the group. And I do not feel that the vendor paying for a site visit counts as playing nice. Maybe those vendors could at least be granted a seal of approval by AEMSA. Not full membership mind you, but at least something to say they meet or exceed the standards.

And who amongst the vaping community decided who the charter members would be? If AEMSA is going to represent me then I would like a bit of say in the matter of who is running the ship.

 

[xanderxman]

It's not a vendor organization. It's a trade organization for manufacturers/suppliers.
I suppose it could indirectly effect vendors if they limit themselves to products from only certain suppliers AND the AEMSA certification draws sales. But I don't understand your fears or need to control people only buying something over something else because it has a "shiny label" on it. I'm over 18 and, like you, I feel I'm capable of making my own informed (or uninformed) choices and finding out what the shiny label means to me, if anything. ...maybe we could force them to use a dull gray seal.

So manufacturers and suppliers are not vendors? I see that 9 of the 10 charter members SELL items on their website. What would you call them?

Yes, we are all grownups and can make our own decisions about where to buy our products. I just see a sudden grouping of vendors that want to create standards for an entire community as possibly dangerous. I am not saying it is indeed dangerous, just that it can become so rather quickly.

No matter the color or shiny quality of the seal, it is still someting special you can only get by being a member.

 

[Quick1]

So manufacturers and suppliers are not vendors? I see that 9 of the 10 charter members SELL items on their website. What would you call them?

Both, obviously. But you have to be a manufacturer and there are many many vendors who are not.

Yes, we are all grownups and can make our own decisions about where to buy our products. I just see a sudden grouping of vendors that want to create standards for an entire community as possibly dangerous. I am not saying it is indeed dangerous, just that it can become so rather quickly.

No, they don't want to create standards for an entire community. They want to define a standard for themselves. And I gather you are worried other manufacturers will join them?

They are not forcing anything on anyone. Members have to join ... willingly. It's not like they're the Borg. If it doesn't look like a good idea then manufacturers won't join and they will be a very small organization. If consumers don't buy into the standard and certification then manufacturers won't bother joining and they will be a very small organization. It's not like regulated industries where you have to get a license before you do business.

By the way; I'm not endorsing AEMSA and haven't formed an opinion on AEMSA itself or their standard.
I do think the concept is a great idea.

No matter the color or shiny quality of the seal, it is still someting special you can only get by being a member.

Thats true for ANY group you have to join... I can think of quite a few whose "seal" carries a very negative connotation to most non-members.

 

[njay23]

Yes, we are all grownups and can make our own decisions about where to buy our products. I just see a sudden grouping of vendors that want to create standards for an entire community as possibly dangerous. I am not saying it is indeed dangerous, just that it can become so rather quickly.

They are creating standards for themselves NOT the entire community. I don't see how this is a bad thing. It is a trade organization not a consumer organization. They want their industry to continue.

 

[Quick1]

So after a bit of drinking I was thinking....

It seems there is a knee jerk reaction/opposition to AEMSA because they are not "us"... whatever "us" is.
I think most of the opposition think the idea a good one but they don't like that someone else not completely under their control is doing it. Then there is the thing that it's a trade organization for businesses that may be at odds with consumers (maybe that's the "us"). and the fear that someone else might influence the FDA or the industry without "our" input and consideration. Everybody wants control and the deciding voice but they don't have the inclination or resources or backing to organize anything.

So something needs to happen and it seems the time is ripe. Who might be perfectly positioned to be the ideal standards and certification body? .... ECF! Standards and certifications for manufacturers, suppliers, and vendors and the industry and community voice to the FDA/government regulatory bodies/lobby legislation/everything. **ECF Approved**

Lol, I'm sure ECF has considered this and there are probably many reasons why they have rejected it but I'd bet it would be enlightening and pertinent to the current thread to hear.