Zelphie,
It's not surprising or suspicious to see a change in direction. This is a response to public interest, and a result of our research on the subject. Yeah, we moved slow. Because we didn't want to get it wrong, or panic when panic is unneeded. What's suspicious about that? And again, why isn't this aimed at any other FA-using suppliers who are either trying to keep their heads down to not draw any attention so they won't have to do anything, or not making any effort at change at all?
Let's pre-suppose you're right and the levels of diacetyl in juice are meaningful. We don't actually know that, but that's another thing we're going to be researching. If that's true, then the substitutes which have similar risks would also be concerning.
We decided disclosing wasn't good enough. Though no one has any real evidence of risk at the levels of diacetyl we're talking about, most of the substitutes for it are just as theoretically bad - a fact which seems to be frequently overlooked. So even if other flavor suppliers say they don't use diacetyl, what they use instead could be just as concerning. And I find it odd you'll accept an answer given in a panic response within hours from other flavor suppliers without question, considering that not even FA, probably one of the most prolific suppliers, knew all of the flavors containing it even after weeks of research on their part.
When none of them are saying anything about other chemicals except for diacetyl (and they're only saying that much because they're afraid of the PR storm), and there are a handful of other substitute chemicals with the exact same risks, why wouldn't we want to research it? How is saying "Yeah, it has diacetyl. We have no idea what's in the other flavorings, but we'll use that instead to quiet everyone down, even though there's a good chance it's just as bad or worse" a solution?
I don't really understand where all these conspiracy theories are coming from. I also don't understand why if you're truly concerned about this issue, you aren't concerned about the diacetyl substitutes, and you're not suspicious about the other flavoring company's hasty answers. And I don't understand why you'll take a risk on these other mystery chemicals with the exact same risks, but are so freaked out about diacetyl.
There's a lot about your reaction, and that of others, that I really don't understand.
Switching to something unknown and probably just as bad is not what we consider a solution.
If we were willing to do that, THAT would be a cover-up. THAT would be us only trying to run a PR campaign. THAT would prove we don't care.
David, Pam, myself, and everyone else working for FSUSA, paid or voluntary, all have their own opinions on the subject. But this is obviously enough of a concern for people that we're looking into it.
We're not going to be lazy about it, and no, it's not about the PR campaign. It's about getting it right. If it was about the PR campaign, we could end the problem with a non-solution in a week, and with a few hundred bucks. Instead we're going to spend tens of thousands to get a REAL solution.
Doing that takes time. So until we had some kind of potential solution to offer, there was nothing to say. We're not going to leap to something that could be even worse in an attempt to dodge the shrill voice of suspicion.
David is a passionate guy. And sometimes his speech-like way of writing seems to rile an emotion reaction from certain people. But he's doing this because he sees a bigger problem in the industry, where if you are actually concerned about this, you should be aware of it. He has his personal opinion on what he is willing to vape. But he chose FA because he judged them to be the best for the purposes of vaping, in a sea of suppliers who don't really make anything specified for vaping. And he's demonstrating that if you're concerned about this, then we should be doing a lot more than waiting for the next unknown ingredient to surface. And yes, he's proud of doing so. Why shouldn't he be?
I did my trial about 3 weeks ago. And I can tell you they were talking about how to fix this back then. Yes, we did consider just switching some juices to other flavor suppliers. But it was clear that didn't solve the problem.
Making real effort is something that takes time, and for some reason people would rather have a fake solution than wait for a real one. I dare say this is why we have such a hard time getting a good politician in office, no matter what side you fall on - people would rather have band-aids over bullet holes than wait for a comprehensive solution. So we get rid of the people who want to actually solve things, and settle for rhetoric.
You're asking us to put a band-aid over a bullet hole. We aren't going to do that.
As to your last comment... well, I appreciate the honesty.
It's not surprising or suspicious to see a change in direction. This is a response to public interest, and a result of our research on the subject. Yeah, we moved slow. Because we didn't want to get it wrong, or panic when panic is unneeded. What's suspicious about that? And again, why isn't this aimed at any other FA-using suppliers who are either trying to keep their heads down to not draw any attention so they won't have to do anything, or not making any effort at change at all?
Let's pre-suppose you're right and the levels of diacetyl in juice are meaningful. We don't actually know that, but that's another thing we're going to be researching. If that's true, then the substitutes which have similar risks would also be concerning.
We decided disclosing wasn't good enough. Though no one has any real evidence of risk at the levels of diacetyl we're talking about, most of the substitutes for it are just as theoretically bad - a fact which seems to be frequently overlooked. So even if other flavor suppliers say they don't use diacetyl, what they use instead could be just as concerning. And I find it odd you'll accept an answer given in a panic response within hours from other flavor suppliers without question, considering that not even FA, probably one of the most prolific suppliers, knew all of the flavors containing it even after weeks of research on their part.
When none of them are saying anything about other chemicals except for diacetyl (and they're only saying that much because they're afraid of the PR storm), and there are a handful of other substitute chemicals with the exact same risks, why wouldn't we want to research it? How is saying "Yeah, it has diacetyl. We have no idea what's in the other flavorings, but we'll use that instead to quiet everyone down, even though there's a good chance it's just as bad or worse" a solution?
I don't really understand where all these conspiracy theories are coming from. I also don't understand why if you're truly concerned about this issue, you aren't concerned about the diacetyl substitutes, and you're not suspicious about the other flavoring company's hasty answers. And I don't understand why you'll take a risk on these other mystery chemicals with the exact same risks, but are so freaked out about diacetyl.
There's a lot about your reaction, and that of others, that I really don't understand.
Switching to something unknown and probably just as bad is not what we consider a solution.
If we were willing to do that, THAT would be a cover-up. THAT would be us only trying to run a PR campaign. THAT would prove we don't care.
David, Pam, myself, and everyone else working for FSUSA, paid or voluntary, all have their own opinions on the subject. But this is obviously enough of a concern for people that we're looking into it.
We're not going to be lazy about it, and no, it's not about the PR campaign. It's about getting it right. If it was about the PR campaign, we could end the problem with a non-solution in a week, and with a few hundred bucks. Instead we're going to spend tens of thousands to get a REAL solution.
Doing that takes time. So until we had some kind of potential solution to offer, there was nothing to say. We're not going to leap to something that could be even worse in an attempt to dodge the shrill voice of suspicion.
David is a passionate guy. And sometimes his speech-like way of writing seems to rile an emotion reaction from certain people. But he's doing this because he sees a bigger problem in the industry, where if you are actually concerned about this, you should be aware of it. He has his personal opinion on what he is willing to vape. But he chose FA because he judged them to be the best for the purposes of vaping, in a sea of suppliers who don't really make anything specified for vaping. And he's demonstrating that if you're concerned about this, then we should be doing a lot more than waiting for the next unknown ingredient to surface. And yes, he's proud of doing so. Why shouldn't he be?
I did my trial about 3 weeks ago. And I can tell you they were talking about how to fix this back then. Yes, we did consider just switching some juices to other flavor suppliers. But it was clear that didn't solve the problem.
Making real effort is something that takes time, and for some reason people would rather have a fake solution than wait for a real one. I dare say this is why we have such a hard time getting a good politician in office, no matter what side you fall on - people would rather have band-aids over bullet holes than wait for a comprehensive solution. So we get rid of the people who want to actually solve things, and settle for rhetoric.
You're asking us to put a band-aid over a bullet hole. We aren't going to do that.
As to your last comment... well, I appreciate the honesty.
Last edited:
