D/AP concerns. Vocal minority?
- Thread starter JavaJunkie
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Diacetyl is a chemical that was found to be a prominent volatile constituent in butter flavoring and air at the microwave popcorn plant initially investigated. Workers in microwave popcorn manufacturing are exposed to many materials besides diacetyl. Thus, initial studies in a total of 6 microwave popcorn plants were not able to definitely determine if diacetyl exposure contributed to lung disease or was a marker for other hazardous substances that contributed to disease. Current evidence, however, points to diacetyl as one agent that can cause flavorings-related lung disease. While other flavoring ingredients may also play a role.
Meaning, while they cannot prove that diacetyl was the cause of the disease, they do consider it a primary area of concern. The diacetyl inhaled by these factory workers was in powder form, used to add a buttery flavor to the microwave popcorn they were producing. However, when vaping there is obviously no powder being inhaled, so does this concern relate to vaping?
It may not be common knowledge, but diacetyl is a common ingredient in tobacco, and has been for over 50 years. Meaning, those who have been smoking cigarettes, have been inhaling diacetyl this whole time. The Critical Reviews in Toxicology 4 group conducted a study simply titled Diacetyl where they concluded,
Diacetyl exposures from cigarette smoking far exceeded occupational exposures for most food/flavoring workers. This suggests that previous claims of a significant exposure-response relationship between diacetyl inhalation and respiratory disease in food/flavoring workers were confounded. Further, smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis (popcorn lung).
To summarize their findings, they found that the levels of diacetyl in tobacco were significantly higher than those found in the factories where the popcorn lung was contracted, bringing into question the diacetyl as the cause of the condition. Further, they found that smoking cigarettes, regardless of the higher levels of diacetyl has not been shown to cause popcorn lung. Looking at e-juice in relation to tobacco levels of diacetyl the Nicotine & Tobacco Research 5 group conducted a study Evaluation of Electronic Cigarette Liquids and published these results, “The purpose of this study was to evaluate sweet-flavoured electronic cigarette (EC) liquids for the presence of diacetyl (DA). DA was found in 74.2% of the samples. They were lower than the strict safety limits for occupational exposure and 110 times lower compared to smoking respectively.” This tells us first, that there is diacetyl in analog cigarettes at 110 times higher levels than those found in the e-juices they studied. Secondly this tells us the amounts they found in the e-juice were within the safety limits of exposure.
To summarize, studies like those conducted above show that there is a significantly higher amount of diacetyl exposure from smoking than there is in the factories where the production workers got sick, presumably (but not proven to be) due to exposure to diacetyl inhalation. There are no documented cases of popcorn-lung being developed from smoking. Considering that studies show, as indicated above, that the amount of diacetyl in analog cigarettes is 110 times higher than amounts found in the e-liquids tested, and there are no cases of diacetyl related sickness from smoking, I would conclude that the levels of diacetyl found in some of the e-cig juices are relatively safe. That being said, when you buy from Mt Baker Vapor we use the highest quality, finest ingredients from right here in the US, which means we can make sure that they are all diacetyl free. While the studies discussed above do not substantiate a concern for utilizing diacetyl in e-juice, we choose not to use it in our flavoring.
Just a few snips I found very interesting from https: //www .linkedin.com/pulse /truth-diacetyl-amy-bohannan
I know Mt. Baker is advertising their products here... but if you read it, it makes a lot of sense! Popcorn lung is associated with the powder form of Diacetyl, not liquid form. If inhaling diacetyl in any other form caused popcorn lung or BO wouldn't people who have smoked obsessively for decades or even half a century have shown cases of popcorn lung?
Meaning, while they cannot prove that diacetyl was the cause of the disease, they do consider it a primary area of concern. The diacetyl inhaled by these factory workers was in powder form, used to add a buttery flavor to the microwave popcorn they were producing. However, when vaping there is obviously no powder being inhaled, so does this concern relate to vaping?
It may not be common knowledge, but diacetyl is a common ingredient in tobacco, and has been for over 50 years. Meaning, those who have been smoking cigarettes, have been inhaling diacetyl this whole time. The Critical Reviews in Toxicology 4 group conducted a study simply titled Diacetyl where they concluded,
Diacetyl exposures from cigarette smoking far exceeded occupational exposures for most food/flavoring workers. This suggests that previous claims of a significant exposure-response relationship between diacetyl inhalation and respiratory disease in food/flavoring workers were confounded. Further, smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis (popcorn lung).
To summarize their findings, they found that the levels of diacetyl in tobacco were significantly higher than those found in the factories where the popcorn lung was contracted, bringing into question the diacetyl as the cause of the condition. Further, they found that smoking cigarettes, regardless of the higher levels of diacetyl has not been shown to cause popcorn lung. Looking at e-juice in relation to tobacco levels of diacetyl the Nicotine & Tobacco Research 5 group conducted a study Evaluation of Electronic Cigarette Liquids and published these results, “The purpose of this study was to evaluate sweet-flavoured electronic cigarette (EC) liquids for the presence of diacetyl (DA). DA was found in 74.2% of the samples. They were lower than the strict safety limits for occupational exposure and 110 times lower compared to smoking respectively.” This tells us first, that there is diacetyl in analog cigarettes at 110 times higher levels than those found in the e-juices they studied. Secondly this tells us the amounts they found in the e-juice were within the safety limits of exposure.
To summarize, studies like those conducted above show that there is a significantly higher amount of diacetyl exposure from smoking than there is in the factories where the production workers got sick, presumably (but not proven to be) due to exposure to diacetyl inhalation. There are no documented cases of popcorn-lung being developed from smoking. Considering that studies show, as indicated above, that the amount of diacetyl in analog cigarettes is 110 times higher than amounts found in the e-liquids tested, and there are no cases of diacetyl related sickness from smoking, I would conclude that the levels of diacetyl found in some of the e-cig juices are relatively safe. That being said, when you buy from Mt Baker Vapor we use the highest quality, finest ingredients from right here in the US, which means we can make sure that they are all diacetyl free. While the studies discussed above do not substantiate a concern for utilizing diacetyl in e-juice, we choose not to use it in our flavoring.
Just a few snips I found very interesting from https: //www .linkedin.com/pulse /truth-diacetyl-amy-bohannan
I know Mt. Baker is advertising their products here... but if you read it, it makes a lot of sense! Popcorn lung is associated with the powder form of Diacetyl, not liquid form. If inhaling diacetyl in any other form caused popcorn lung or BO wouldn't people who have smoked obsessively for decades or even half a century have shown cases of popcorn lung?
Last edited:
My Dad smoked 4 packs of cigarettes a day for well over 50 years. Not the light cigarettes either, the full flavored ones. My mom smoked 3 packs a day for nearly as long. Neither had lung issues. My dad died at 71 years old of colon issues in surgery. My mom vapes now but has no lung issues. She's 68 years old. If diacetyl through smoking or vaping caused BO or popcorn lung you'd think someone from decades of heavy smoking would have popped up with the disease.
Wha, wha, what?
Bringing into question the cause of the condition?
B-b-bu-but we've got our mind made up that ABSOLUTELY DA/P is cause of the condition. This is "known." Okay, so maybe not known. But just cause we don't know for sure, doesn't mean that one day we might not be right. And as a fall back, we wish to say that all possible lung issues from smoking are quite possibly (we wish to say likely) directly attributable to the DA factor in smoking. With that firmly established (as indisputable fact) then we have presented clear evidence that it is a known risk in eLiquid. And as it can be removed, then it ought to be removed, being an avoidable risk.
But wait, not all of us are saying that. If you wish to take the risk, then by all means, take it. Have at it. Vape it and we'll see what happens to you. Me, I'm going to be perfectly fine inhaling the substitutes which are (I think, fingers crossed) perfectly fine for my lungs. So, it's not like all of us want it removed. No, we just want it to be disclosed to us. We are owed that much. We deserving nothing less. So, just tell us if we ask whether or not for sure it is in there. And if you believe that it is not, and turns out you are wrong, we will nail you. Nail you good. Because you lied. You said no and it was, and well we know that is a lie and we are calling it a lie even while the investigation could show you were actually honest, but didn't know better. So, we will rely entirely on you going forward in determining whether or not it is in there. Ya know, cause it is a known problem. Well, not really known, but you know we mean!
And if you are telling same type of "lies" on any of the other ingredients, we'll let that slide. Cause we're honorable like that. We think vaping is so much better than, well everything really. We've told all our friends and family about this wonderful activity, and we don't want to let them think that that we don't actually have any idea about anything in any of the ingredients. Instead, we want to stick to narrative of "so much better" and hope no one ever calls us on this, so we aren't hemming and hawing on one ingredient vs. all others that are equally unknown over the long term. For we know that in reality, there is not a scientist today, nor a scientific report today that can establish with 100% certainty the known issues with any of the ingredients in vaping, over the long term. So, we'll just give into fear mongering on this one claim, cause well it seems like the cool thing to do today, and all the kids are doing it. Why shouldn't we?
When they fear monger with nicotine, or PG, or VG or unflavored, or batteries, or really anything else, we'll defend vaping. We'll scrutinize the heck out of their claims and we'll take to task their fearful claims. But on this ingredient, not so much. Cause we ABSOLUTELY KNOW DA/P to be harmful. The evidence is clear. But not really known, nor really clear. But you know what we mean!
What I'm a little puzzled by is the fact that the chemicals used in place of diacetyl could be just as "dangerous"
or even more so. There's no evidence either way. Maybe its chemical name sounds better? Therefore it must be better?
Your post didn't read as a statement of facts to me. Almost all hypothetical, conjecture, and risk estimation based on very little. The only sentence presented as fact was : " Even in the workplace exposure examples, that are only information we have for actual harm, the likelihood of DA being deemed a causal factor is 1 in a thousand chance. " Could you please provide a link to the source. I am interested in this actually.
Does the information from post #29 of this thread work for you? If not, I'll look to source it in another way within next few days.
Last edited:
ok thanks, as i suspected you are misstating the NIOSH recommendations :
The cut-off level of risk calculated by NIOSH for the safety limit is for 1 in 1000 chance of suffering reduced lung function associated with lifelong diacetyl exposure, which is a very conservative estimation. However, many samples contained levels much higher than safety limits. Moreover, unlike tobacco cigarettes where these chemicals are produced during the combustion process, in e-cigarettes they are used as ingredients. Thus, this represents an avoidable risk, which should be removed.
This is NIOSH estimating the chances of reduced lung function if their " safety limit " recommendations ( extrapolated to no more than 65 ug per day for vapers by Dr. F ) in the work place are followed. What you stated ( Even in the workplace exposure examples, that are only information we have for actual harm, the likelihood of DA being deemed a causal factor is 1 in a thousand chance ) is something completely different. If they believed the current chances were one in one thousand, they wouldn't recommend safety levels to bring it down to that level.
There is another member who has misstated the NIOSH statement on numerous occasions. I have corrected him a couple of times, but he keeps repeating it. I don't know if this was the source of your misinformation, but if it is, i recommend you fact check his posts before you use those " facts " in your argument.
Yeah, the portion regarding estimates just deals with speculation. That wasn't the factual part I referenced previously. Why would think estimates deal with facts?
Or put another way, what would you estimate to be the chances of DA being a causal factor in diminished lung function in either the workplace examples or wrt vaping? Is this data known? Or would you be using a guesstimate?
I have absolutely no clue, nor do i think anyone else on this forum does either. Even to arrive at a guesstimate i would have to read all the NIOSH papers and studies ( the source material ). Even if i had the scientific expertise to fully comprehend, they are hundreds if not thousands of pages long !
It's easier to make the case for a causal factor from the animal studies and the studies FlavourArt are doing in the lab to establish cell damage, since they are controlled studies.
Last edited:
Interesting to read...
http ://www .tandfonline .com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408444.2014.882292
http ://www .tandfonline .com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408444.2014.882292
Just to put this in perspective, this study was commissioned by the food industry to resist implementing ( costly ? ) changes in the workplace NIOSH is recommending. The original authors of the study have written a response claiming the authors have misrepresented the facts of their study ( including that all " cohorts had considerable smoking histories " ). Both the original study and the Pierce study ( and the response from the original authors ) have been posted before but i can't find them right now. When i do, i will post.
If this is a campaign to bring back Tobacco Flavors..........Pass.
I Refuse to move from the fence until there is FACTUAL documentation Proving any actual possibility of danger on a Consumer level.
We have the technology and yet.............Nothing.
We are at least 6 years into the (Non existant) long term with no reported effects.
I agree with disclosure - People have a right to choice
Da/Ap is Riding a CDC coat tail without conclusion...... Yes it may be a contributor or it may be in a contributing combination of chemicals and has not been isolated as a Direct cause of any complications.
Bronchiolitis obliterans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bronchiolitis obliterans in children. - PubMed - NCBI
Reports as early as 1985
Bronchiolitis Obliterans Organizing Pneumonia - NORD (National Organization for Rare Disorders)
Just saying
I Refuse to move from the fence until there is FACTUAL documentation Proving any actual possibility of danger on a Consumer level.
We have the technology and yet.............Nothing.
We are at least 6 years into the (Non existant) long term with no reported effects.
I agree with disclosure - People have a right to choice
Da/Ap is Riding a CDC coat tail without conclusion...... Yes it may be a contributor or it may be in a contributing combination of chemicals and has not been isolated as a Direct cause of any complications.
Bronchiolitis obliterans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bronchiolitis obliterans in children. - PubMed - NCBI
Reports as early as 1985
Bronchiolitis Obliterans Organizing Pneumonia - NORD (National Organization for Rare Disorders)
Just saying
Mazinny, all I remember about the Pierce study is that Dr. Farsalinos said he *absolutely* disagreed with their conclusions.
which made me go and read it, but that was a long time ago. But here is Dr. F's post, and there is also a link to the Pierce study in his post.
Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study
He explains about how BO isn't happening but believes COPD is.... and that diacetyl exposure causes a decline in lung function which can be detected by a reduction in FEV1, so perhaps that development is what made him say diketones don't belong in ejuice. Although I do not really know all the hows and whys of Dr. Fs thoughts or how they came about, only what he says in posts and interviews.
which made me go and read it, but that was a long time ago.
But here is Dr. F's post, and there is also a link to the Pierce study in his post.Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study
He explains about how BO isn't happening but believes COPD is.... and that diacetyl exposure causes a decline in lung function which can be detected by a reduction in FEV1, so perhaps that development is what made him say diketones don't belong in ejuice. Although I do not really know all the hows and whys of Dr. Fs thoughts or how they came about, only what he says in posts and interviews.
Has this claim ever been refuted?
"This suggests that previous claims of a significant exposure–response relationship between diacetyl inhalation and respiratory disease in food/flavoring workers were confounded, because none of the investigations considered or quantified the non-occupational diacetyl exposure from cigarette smoke, yet all of the cohorts evaluated had considerable smoking histories. "
From the link in #153.
regards
mike
Yes, I do know this paper, abstract is here:
Diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione exposures associated with cigarette smoking: implications for risk assessment of food and flavoring workers. - PubMed - NCBI
It made me somewhat skeptical about harmfulness of diacetyl, but jury has not yet decided. One paper is never enough. We know a lot of wrongful papers, we need confirmation. And while there is no confirmation I would rather not recommend diacetyl-laced juices. For me it is rather theoretical question, my juices are so slightly flavored that I do not feel myself threatened by any flavors.
What I'm a little puzzled by is the fact that the chemicals used in place of diacetyl could be just as "dangerous"
This.
If we aren't sure/don't know about DA, then how could anyone sticking to this rhetoric recommend any juice, flavored or not? Please show the long term data on those liquids. If not able to, then how is it plausible to recommend anyone to vape? Or to suggest it is harm reduction? Just a guess really, no?
There are flavorings available that do not contain Diacetyl , Acetyl propionyl or Acetoin , it's not like every juice and flavoring has if not one at least another .
I prefer to avoid all three but thats just what i prefer to do , if it was a choice between smoking analogs and a juice that contained all or some of the above i would vape the juice but nowadays you can avoid all three chemicals if that is what you choose to do .
I prefer to avoid all three but thats just what i prefer to do , if it was a choice between smoking analogs and a juice that contained all or some of the above i would vape the juice but nowadays you can avoid all three chemicals if that is what you choose to do .
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
