I was just thinking the same thing! It's like a battle that just... stopped!
Ask your favorite suppliers to remove diacetyl from their e-liquids!
- Thread starter JeffTM
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I was just thinking the same thing! It's like a battle that just... stopped!
The juice vendors, I would think, depend pretty heavily on this and a handful of other forums for a lot of their customers. And for every person like myself who isn't shy about posting, there are probably dozens who simply lurk and rarely, if ever, post. That's the nature of Internet forums.
If we know for a fact that Vendor XYZ uses diacetyl in their juices, we can accomplish a lot just by pointing that out here, particularly in threads about Vendor XYZ's products.
If we know for a fact that Vendor XYZ uses diacetyl in their juices, we can accomplish a lot just by pointing that out here, particularly in threads about Vendor XYZ's products.
Ok, I tried to read as much of this thread as I could, but there's just too much and the signal-to-noise ratio gets kind of low after a while. Without trying to unduly ruffle feathers, would someone in the know be able to answer the following questions?
1. Are there any other flavorants other than diacetyl that are known to be harmful when inhaled?
2. What e-liquid vendors are considered the safest? Meaning their formulation is done by chemists, they make an MSDS available for their products, are known not to include known harmful ingredients, and have been forthcoming, honest, and competent in discussing these issues?
3. If one were to attempt to DIY as safely as possible, are there any flavorings such as natural oils/extracts that would be considered safe for vaping with a high degree of certainty?
Thanks guys. Glad this thread got bumped.
1. Are there any other flavorants other than diacetyl that are known to be harmful when inhaled?
2. What e-liquid vendors are considered the safest? Meaning their formulation is done by chemists, they make an MSDS available for their products, are known not to include known harmful ingredients, and have been forthcoming, honest, and competent in discussing these issues?
3. If one were to attempt to DIY as safely as possible, are there any flavorings such as natural oils/extracts that would be considered safe for vaping with a high degree of certainty?
Thanks guys. Glad this thread got bumped.
It gives people a way to vent their insecurities. I mean if someone is using a product you don't like then quit using it. I'm sure by now everyone that is still above ground knows about Diacetyl. I know I ate it for fifty some yrs. But if people feel the need to go off let em,who cares .
Last edited:
MrNate, there are a lot of unknowns unfortunately. While diacetyl is known to damage respiratory and lung tissue, there has never been a PEL or permissible safe amount established. Some of the similar chems that are used in place of diacetyl are suspect, but no confirmed testing has been done.
Getting a list of "safe" vendors hasn't been possible, about all you can do is email them and decide if you trust their answers.
As far as DIY, there is a ton of great info in the DIY forums.
Getting a list of "safe" vendors hasn't been possible, about all you can do is email them and decide if you trust their answers.
As far as DIY, there is a ton of great info in the DIY forums.
5C, yes it IS safe to eat, but studies show that there is reason to be concerned when inhaling it. I'm pro choice here, I don't tell anyone to or not to use flavors containing it but I do ask people to at least read the research and chose for themselves. It's all about educated decisions.
Exactly Bov. Educated decisions based on disclosure, which is what we've pretty much all agreed is the key!
I like a good hysterical debate about diacetyl as much as the next man. But the only hard fact in all this is that no suppliers publish a full GC-MS analysis of their e-liquids, therefore it has to be assumed that any/all of them contain it. I only know of two manufacturers who regularly have their liquids tested (one in the US, one in the UK), and since neither of them have confirmed they test for diacetyl and published any results of a GC-MS test that looked specifically for diacetyl, again we have to assume that even these more responsible makers' products may contain it (Intellicig UK and eSmoke US).
As I have stated before, what a vendor tells you is utterly meaningless - they may or may not be telling the truth, and of course there are at least two companies in the supply chain before them who equally may or may not be honest. In addition we know for a fact that an original flavor manufacturer can conceal the truth from buyers even when their own staff are falling ill, the courts have awarded millions of dollars compensation in damages claims for this.
Recently we heard that some more of a popular Italian DIY flavor manufacturer's products were found to contain diacetyl even though they had published a list of contaminated flavors and these additional flavors were not on it. This vendor also supplies materials to the trade, so it is safe to assume that e-liquids purchased by members will contain some of those flavors. The e-liquid supplier will be able to tell you honestly that the product contains no diacetyl - but we know they may have been misled by the flavor supplier. As I have repeatedly stated, what a supplier tells you is meaningless. All buttery flavors, and even those that may possibly have some sort of buttery/candy/sweet flavor, should be assumed to contain diacetyl unless the supplier can produce a GC-MS analysis that specifically looked for it and is negative. This costs $300 per sample to do, possibly $200 for batches/bulk, so essentially a supplier who will not provide such proof is telling you that it is not worth their while to spend that money.
Or, perhaps they had their products tested, and don't want to admit to an unfavorable result.
You can certainly publish a list here of vendors who have told you their products do not contain diacetyl. What you cannot do is either say they don't contain diacetyl, without proof, or that any other supplier's products do contain diacetyl, just because someone else says theirs don't. There is no proof for any of it.
What you can and can't do on ECF
You can publish a list of those who say they don't have any diacetyl-containing products.
You can publish a list of those who refused to answer in any satisfactory way.
You can't publish a list of those who do or don't have diacetyl - unless you yourself want to do the GC-MS testing.
You can't start accusing some suppliers but not others - until one produces proof they are not guilty.
You can't accuse the ECF staff of heavy-handedness if they delete hysterical accusations with no foundation in fact. There are no facts here.
Once again, ALL SUPPLIERS' PRODUCTS WITH A BUTTERY COMPONENT TO THE TASTE MUST BE ASSUMED TO CONTAIN DIACETYL, since not one has produced any evidence to the contrary.
By publishing lists of Suppliers who have or have not replied in a satisfactory manner, and then attributing a greater or lesser likelihood of whether or not their products contain diacetyl to the directness of their reply, you are simply confusing other members. ALL BUTTERY/SWEET E-LIQUID HAS TO BE ASSUMED TO CONTAIN IT UNLESS PROOF IS SHOWN THAT IT DOESN'T.
All any e-liquid supplier has to do is spend $300 and they can provide you with the proof. Or if it's that important to you, collect $300 yourself and do your own testing. Otherwise stay away from buttery/sweet flavors, and stop muddying the waters by accusing some but not others. All e-liquid suppliers are equally guilty. Obviously, your safety is not a priority for any of them - it's not even worth $300 to multi-million dollar companies - so it seems pointless to accuse some but not others. And by the way, if ever there were a reason to have a government testing agency involved in the regulation of the industry - this is it.
I hope this is clear now. If you encounter any difficulty in complying with these requirements and advisories then please email me at admin@ecf or chris@ecf, see the Contacts page for full details.
As I have stated before, what a vendor tells you is utterly meaningless - they may or may not be telling the truth, and of course there are at least two companies in the supply chain before them who equally may or may not be honest. In addition we know for a fact that an original flavor manufacturer can conceal the truth from buyers even when their own staff are falling ill, the courts have awarded millions of dollars compensation in damages claims for this.
Recently we heard that some more of a popular Italian DIY flavor manufacturer's products were found to contain diacetyl even though they had published a list of contaminated flavors and these additional flavors were not on it. This vendor also supplies materials to the trade, so it is safe to assume that e-liquids purchased by members will contain some of those flavors. The e-liquid supplier will be able to tell you honestly that the product contains no diacetyl - but we know they may have been misled by the flavor supplier. As I have repeatedly stated, what a supplier tells you is meaningless. All buttery flavors, and even those that may possibly have some sort of buttery/candy/sweet flavor, should be assumed to contain diacetyl unless the supplier can produce a GC-MS analysis that specifically looked for it and is negative. This costs $300 per sample to do, possibly $200 for batches/bulk, so essentially a supplier who will not provide such proof is telling you that it is not worth their while to spend that money.
Or, perhaps they had their products tested, and don't want to admit to an unfavorable result.
You can certainly publish a list here of vendors who have told you their products do not contain diacetyl. What you cannot do is either say they don't contain diacetyl, without proof, or that any other supplier's products do contain diacetyl, just because someone else says theirs don't. There is no proof for any of it.
What you can and can't do on ECF
You can publish a list of those who say they don't have any diacetyl-containing products.
You can publish a list of those who refused to answer in any satisfactory way.
You can't publish a list of those who do or don't have diacetyl - unless you yourself want to do the GC-MS testing.
You can't start accusing some suppliers but not others - until one produces proof they are not guilty.
You can't accuse the ECF staff of heavy-handedness if they delete hysterical accusations with no foundation in fact. There are no facts here.
Once again, ALL SUPPLIERS' PRODUCTS WITH A BUTTERY COMPONENT TO THE TASTE MUST BE ASSUMED TO CONTAIN DIACETYL, since not one has produced any evidence to the contrary.
By publishing lists of Suppliers who have or have not replied in a satisfactory manner, and then attributing a greater or lesser likelihood of whether or not their products contain diacetyl to the directness of their reply, you are simply confusing other members. ALL BUTTERY/SWEET E-LIQUID HAS TO BE ASSUMED TO CONTAIN IT UNLESS PROOF IS SHOWN THAT IT DOESN'T.
All any e-liquid supplier has to do is spend $300 and they can provide you with the proof. Or if it's that important to you, collect $300 yourself and do your own testing. Otherwise stay away from buttery/sweet flavors, and stop muddying the waters by accusing some but not others. All e-liquid suppliers are equally guilty. Obviously, your safety is not a priority for any of them - it's not even worth $300 to multi-million dollar companies - so it seems pointless to accuse some but not others. And by the way, if ever there were a reason to have a government testing agency involved in the regulation of the industry - this is it.
I hope this is clear now. If you encounter any difficulty in complying with these requirements and advisories then please email me at admin@ecf or chris@ecf, see the Contacts page for full details.
1. One or more of the substitutes for diacetyl are thought to be equally harmful to inhale, but there is no real evidence as yet. Cinnamon and capsaicin (the hot component in chilli) are likely to cause problems for some people. There are thousands of organic and synthetic flavors, some are bound to be found unsuitable for inhalation.
2. There are no such e-liquid vendors.
All products by all vendors must be assumed to contain harmful materials, since as far as I am aware none have ever published any proper tests - a GC-MS analysis that provided a full list of all ingredients, or a GC-MS analysis that specifically looked for several known hazardous materials that included diacetyl. For this reason all e-liquids should be considered hazardous to some extent, and especially those that have a strong buttery/popcorn/sweet flavor. This is because the only flavor proven to cause irreversible damage to health is the synthetic butter/popcorn additive diacetyl, when inhaled in large quantities for a short time, or smaller quantities over a long period of time. In its organic form in butter or beer etc it causes no problems.
3. There are many flavors that might be thought safer than others, but that is a matter for the individual. Since the flavorings are likely to be the riskiest part of the equation, it might make sense to minimize them.
Unfortunately ECF cannot make any statements on this subject because there are no proven facts - but as a purely personal opinion I think that, for example, you would have few problems with peppermint oil or menthol, in moderation; but it's safe to say that cinnamon, capsaicin and some butter popcorn additives will create issues for some people. Large amounts of any flavor cannot be seen as a safe choice at this time - especially as no vendor will provide proof of what is really in there.
But perhaps this all needs to be placed in perspective - whatever you do, it's likely to be 1,000 times safer than smoking cigarettes. That is a guaranteed way to end your life earlier and in a very unpleasant way for one in four or maybe even one in three who do it.
Last edited:
In addition to what Rolygate has stated, I'd like to clear a couple of things up, as well.
The accusation that we run around closing threads about Diacetyl is utter hogwash. We've closed threads where the members have gotten out of control with personal attacks, absolutely. It doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter. I've also closed one thread where the OP was basically just "Hehe, check it out, I made another Diacetyl thread!". If we had any intention of closing down all Diacetyl threads, don't you think this would have been one of the first ones?
Also, it's one thing to point out that a supplier has e-liquid that contains Diacetyl. It is another thing entirely to start smearing them all over the forum due to a personal vendetta you have against them because of it, posting negative comments in every thread about them that you can. Not to mention the members who were passing around personal info about the owner of one of these businesses. That is not, nor will it ever be tolerated. Not against any member on the ECF.
Never, at any time has any member been threatened with a ban for merely talking about Diacetyl. Ever. Some have received warnings for the kind of behavior I have stated above, sure. In fact, some were just asked to "cut it out" in lieu of any kind of action taken against their account, but yet they still somehow think that the ECF is "out to get them". I've dealt with online forums for nearly 15 years, and I've never seen the sheer amount of e-Paranoia as I have with this one particular topic. It's sincerely mind boggling.
Bottom line, if you want to have a rational discussion on the topic, by all means... please do. All I ask is that your posts adhere to the forum rules, as I do with any other topic. No personal attacks, no smear campaigns. If you're unsure what the forum rules are, or have never read them, they are located in the very top forum on the main page. You can't miss them.
The accusation that we run around closing threads about Diacetyl is utter hogwash. We've closed threads where the members have gotten out of control with personal attacks, absolutely. It doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter. I've also closed one thread where the OP was basically just "Hehe, check it out, I made another Diacetyl thread!". If we had any intention of closing down all Diacetyl threads, don't you think this would have been one of the first ones?
Also, it's one thing to point out that a supplier has e-liquid that contains Diacetyl. It is another thing entirely to start smearing them all over the forum due to a personal vendetta you have against them because of it, posting negative comments in every thread about them that you can. Not to mention the members who were passing around personal info about the owner of one of these businesses. That is not, nor will it ever be tolerated. Not against any member on the ECF.
Never, at any time has any member been threatened with a ban for merely talking about Diacetyl. Ever. Some have received warnings for the kind of behavior I have stated above, sure. In fact, some were just asked to "cut it out" in lieu of any kind of action taken against their account, but yet they still somehow think that the ECF is "out to get them". I've dealt with online forums for nearly 15 years, and I've never seen the sheer amount of e-Paranoia as I have with this one particular topic. It's sincerely mind boggling.
Bottom line, if you want to have a rational discussion on the topic, by all means... please do. All I ask is that your posts adhere to the forum rules, as I do with any other topic. No personal attacks, no smear campaigns. If you're unsure what the forum rules are, or have never read them, they are located in the very top forum on the main page. You can't miss them.
Last edited:
Well said sir! I could not agree more with everything you said here. This pretty much answers 90% of peoples questions/issues with diacetyl. A vendor's word is useless. Their primary concern is to make money and that should be pretty evident by now...
Roly thank you for taking the time to post in such detail, your information is much appreciated.
Roly, thank you for the detailed response. Both of them. While frustrating, I was looking for the actual, true answer and not the mumbled hypothetical. So I do appreciate that.
The unfortunate reality is that I am desperately seeking the most sensible harm-reduction strategy for me, but because of whatever this political BS is that's erupted, the waters have become hoplessly muddied. I don't care about who did what to whom, or why, all I care about is what manufacturers are doing with what and how, and how we know what we know.
Clearly, we really know nothing beyond the facts of what chemicals are known respritory hazards that may exist in some juice in some quantity. Unfortunately, I know that some people have done a lot of legwork in determining which companies are most likely to have reduced this risk based on personal evaluations, and it appears that no one is publishing those data out of fear that it will cause more drama. Which it may, but which I find sad and unfortunate.
Since Roly has stated that publishing such a list of suppliers who claim not to have it is acceptable, I think it would be extremely helpful to compile such a list along with any and all evidence the company rep offered to support the claim. A bald assertion is not enough. A bare list of names is useless. Heresay is beyond useless. Facts are useful. Even a company rep's apparent knowledge and attitude might be useful to some. Would it be possible to do something like this? Put a big disclaimer at the top saying "We have no facts, make your own choices, we are not responsible... etc." and then lock the damn thread?
Even if you don't consider it to be a serious issue, at least realize that some do and would like to see as much data as is available so that we can reach our own logical conclusions.
I completely agree with you, and would very much like to employ this strategy. However, I have one major issue with this. I seem to have a relatively high detection threshold for diacetyl. I am a homebrewer, and occassionally produce a batch with a high diacetyl content. While others tell me they can taste and smell it in the beer, I myself cannot, or occassionally can with some dificulty and a high enough concentration of it.
So unfortunately I cannot trust my own senses to this. Would it be permissible to start a thread asking members to list any flavors they perceive as being "buttery" - Or, even better, flavors in which no "buttery" aroma or flavor is detected?
Thanks again. I just want to make it absolutely clear that I don't give a damn about debating this, I just would like to see as much factual information as we actually have in a post without all the drama. Is that possible?
The unfortunate reality is that I am desperately seeking the most sensible harm-reduction strategy for me, but because of whatever this political BS is that's erupted, the waters have become hoplessly muddied. I don't care about who did what to whom, or why, all I care about is what manufacturers are doing with what and how, and how we know what we know.
Clearly, we really know nothing beyond the facts of what chemicals are known respritory hazards that may exist in some juice in some quantity. Unfortunately, I know that some people have done a lot of legwork in determining which companies are most likely to have reduced this risk based on personal evaluations, and it appears that no one is publishing those data out of fear that it will cause more drama. Which it may, but which I find sad and unfortunate.
Since Roly has stated that publishing such a list of suppliers who claim not to have it is acceptable, I think it would be extremely helpful to compile such a list along with any and all evidence the company rep offered to support the claim. A bald assertion is not enough. A bare list of names is useless. Heresay is beyond useless. Facts are useful. Even a company rep's apparent knowledge and attitude might be useful to some. Would it be possible to do something like this? Put a big disclaimer at the top saying "We have no facts, make your own choices, we are not responsible... etc." and then lock the damn thread?
Even if you don't consider it to be a serious issue, at least realize that some do and would like to see as much data as is available so that we can reach our own logical conclusions.
I completely agree with you, and would very much like to employ this strategy. However, I have one major issue with this. I seem to have a relatively high detection threshold for diacetyl. I am a homebrewer, and occassionally produce a batch with a high diacetyl content. While others tell me they can taste and smell it in the beer, I myself cannot, or occassionally can with some dificulty and a high enough concentration of it.
So unfortunately I cannot trust my own senses to this. Would it be permissible to start a thread asking members to list any flavors they perceive as being "buttery" - Or, even better, flavors in which no "buttery" aroma or flavor is detected?
Thanks again. I just want to make it absolutely clear that I don't give a damn about debating this, I just would like to see as much factual information as we actually have in a post without all the drama. Is that possible?
Last edited:
You can do what you like as long as it follows the rules. The trouble with this subject is that it has generated a very emotional response, the consequence of which is that accusations are flung around, and the Forum Manager will rightly not tolerate this escalation of a simple debate. You just need to have people responding to your post stay civil and reasonable.
From a personal point of view, all e-liquid suppliers are equally guilty, as none have published any proper analyses, despite the very low cost of doing this for a large business (though we could be more charitable in the case of smaller businesses). Therefore it does not make any sense to single out any particular flavor - and therefore supplier - as being more culpable than any other.
I think it likely that such a thread would soon start to go over the line, with Mod edits, deletions, and infractions to follow. However we are just inducting a new group of Mods and they might need something to cut their teeth on.
As for 'factual information', this seems a little optimistic in the circumstances.
From a personal point of view, all e-liquid suppliers are equally guilty, as none have published any proper analyses, despite the very low cost of doing this for a large business (though we could be more charitable in the case of smaller businesses). Therefore it does not make any sense to single out any particular flavor - and therefore supplier - as being more culpable than any other.
I think it likely that such a thread would soon start to go over the line, with Mod edits, deletions, and infractions to follow. However we are just inducting a new group of Mods and they might need something to cut their teeth on.
As for 'factual information', this seems a little optimistic in the circumstances.
Last edited:
Thanks, rolygate. Excellent post... this is why I DIY with very, very little flavoring now.
By the way, roly, can I borrow $300? J/K, J/K!
By the way, roly, can I borrow $300?
J/K, J/K!- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
