Diacetyl Containing Liquids Safety Discussion

[shanagan]

Looks like we'll have to keep this going elsewhere. So, here!

The "anti-diacetyl" thread was shut down in the middle of a discussion per the thread starter's request, and the *other* diacetyl thread is getting unmanageable size wise, so I figured a new one couldn't hurt.

Please remember, as always, that love us or hate us, we are a "community" here, and respect during discussion is crucial.

 

[Java_Az]

I would like to see EFC implement a rule that all registered supplies that sell juice have to list ingredients for there juices. All ingredients not just diacetyl. I believe this will be mandatory once this industry is regulated. Just like anything else you put in your body they tell you whats in it. Without getting into if it is safe or not , I believe the customer absolutely positively has the right to know what they are putting in there bodies.

 

[shanagan]

Before the last thread closed, I was in the middle of typing a response which unfortunately required quite a bit of research on my part. What I'd like to do is go from there (what I'd like is actually immaterial, but hey, I can toss it out there!).

A comment was made that basically, if we trust Max from FlavourArt's calculations, and assume that every diy'er and vendor uses his exact recipe for diacetyl containing liquid, we're looking at a trace amount of possible diacetyl inhalation.

Here's the problem (aside from the math, I'll let a DIYer who uses FA's juice chime in on that) - I think we can all agree that .02 ppm (particles per million) is also a trace amount. For us, lay-people, "trace amount" usually equals "so small as not to concern yourself with." But in the study I keep referencing from 2006, (http://defendingscience.org/case_studies/upload/Kanwal.pdf) at a mean exposure of .02ppm, a factory worker exposed to diacetyl experienced lung problems. A TRACE amount.

The question was posed "Does the diacetyl in vapor even reach 0.02ppm?" - first, we don't know. But more important, it doesn't matter. .02 ppm has not been proven to be the baseline at which damage occurs, only that damage occurs at .02ppm. At .02ppm mean exposure, the recommendation is that workers wear the equivalent of gas masks to ensure they do not take in even as little as .02ppm. Even a trace.

And I'm being told I'm "panicking" and "fear-mongering" for bringing this up. The reply was actually that "It just doesn't seem to be at a dangerous level to me" - based on what? On absolutely, positively NOTHING scientific.

But as of roughly 3 days ago, 200ppm was being stated as some sort of threshold for harm. Then that whittled down to 20ppm. Both numbers presented as fact, by the way. But now, when the proof of trace amounts at .02ppm are shown to cause harm to the lungs, we're being told that hey, chill out, it doesn't sound like we're even getting .02ppm.
If you don't like your risk, don't use it.

That's exactly the point. I don't like the risk. I don't like it for me, I don't like it for you, or our community. And to be blunt, not ONE instance of a safe exposure level has ever been proven.

But a trace of a trace amount HAS been proven to cause harm. But mentioning that is "overreacting"? Whose interest does that level of discussion serve? Because it sure doesn't serve me, or the community as a whole.

And you know, here's the kicker - if you have ever been a smoker and you DO present with lung disease, it is likely going to be misdiagnosed based upon your smoking history as a smoking-related illness.

ETA the original post I am referring to up there:

Originally Posted by shanagan
Sticking one's head in the sand in re: potential danger does not solve anything. We all know there are people (hey, like smokers) who will stick their head in the sand and ignore health risks as long as someone, somewhere says "hey, no need to panic here."
Who is ignoring the health risks? There is a difference between awareness and panic.

Kristin's Reply:
Does the diacetyl in vapor even reach 0.02ppm? The FlavourArt site calculated that butter-flavored e-liquid, which has one of the highest concentrations of diacetyl, would have 0.009ppm. Once that turns to vapor and is mixed with air and inhaled, the ppm would be even lower.

It just doesn't seem to be at a dangerous level to me. If someone else is still concerned, then they should avoid it. But boycotting vendors and causing a panic seems excessive over these levels. Especially when ther haven't been any reports of diacetyl-related symptoms in e-cigarette users, either?

Again, I'm not suggesting people don't talk about it, just that people shouldn't overreact.

 

[SimpleSins]

I would like those that feel there is no risk from diacetyl to please provide some credentialed authority where they are getting their information. From all the indication provided thus far, the scientific and medical community do not feel that there is a safe level for the inhalation of vaporized diacetyl (and as a reminder, there is a difference between combustion and vaporization). Orville Redenbacher removed it from his butter popcorn, so he apparently felt there was no point in risking consumer health. In addition, the way that we use it is more concentrated and over a more prolonged period of time than would be present if it were still in all microwave popcorn.

There have been a lot of people asserting that it is safe and that there is no need to remove it, so I would be interested in seeing what peer review of the scientific community they are basing this on. Maybe it's a left brain/right brain thing, but I tend to put my faith in science rather than hope, so it would go a long way to make their point if they share their science to squelch what they seem to perceive as paranoid panic.

 

[SimpleSins]

A comment was made that basically, if we trust Max from FlavourArt's calculations, and assume that every diy'er and vendor uses his exact recipe for diacetyl containing liquid, we're looking at a trace amount of possible diacetyl inhalation.
.

It was brought up in one of the other thread's that the quantity of flavor that number came from (I can't remember offhand if it was listed as 3% or 0.3%) was not really reflective of the way it is used in most "recipes". It is usually closer to 10%.

 

[shanagan]

I would like to see EFC implement a rule that all registered supplies that sell juice have to list ingredients for there juices. All ingredients not just diacetyl. I believe this will be mandatory once this industry is regulated. Just like anything else you put in your body they tell you whats in it. Without getting into if it is safe or not , I believe the customer absolutely positively has the right to know what they are putting in there bodies.

I completely agree. I think many of us feel that switching to a harm-reduction nicotine product was a life-saver, and have taken up the cause whole-heartedly. But there needs to be due-diligence on all sides. Vendors - even those with an exclusive agreement with one flavoring company - should want us to be informed. They should want to prove that the product we're recommending to friends and family members is as safe as possible. But failing that, they need to be held accountable.

At this point I have nothing to say about the current advocacy group. Apparently it is not a consumer advocacy group and has no interest in the safety of juices for sale.

 

[shanagan]

It was brought up in one of the other thread's that the quantity of flavor that number came from (I can't remember offhand if it was listed as 3% or 0.3%) was not really reflective of the way it is used in most "recipes". It is usually closer to 10%.

The first recipe I came across used 36mg nicotine containing pg at 2.5ml, pg or vg at 1.5ml, and 1ml of flavoring. So if my math is right, that is 20% flavoring. (Note, that's just one recipe, I realize these are fluid amounts based on preference.) So from there, if butter contains 1.5% diacetyl, that would be .015 ml - or 0.015017135 ppm in 5ml's of juice.

ETA: Please feel free to check my math, it isn't my strong suit. (Also, I used this calculator for conversion: http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/concentration-solution.html.)

 

[kristin]

I just want to reiterate that I am totally with you guys that something that is proven to be dangerous at the levels found in e-liquid and is not necessary to it's production SHOULD be removed. I also believe that vendors should provide accurate labeling and that CASAA should inform consumers when a harmful additive is found in e-liquid at harmful levels.

I would also like to see CASAA establish standard recommendations for vendors to follow and be awarded when they do. This is something that CASAA has discussed at length. Unfortunately, we don't have the manpower to follow up and monitor all of these companies and our members (not the board) can't really even agree on what those standards should be.

CASAA has been focused on fighting to keep e-cigarettes legal to purchase, as proposed bans are popping up continuously. Unfortunately, that has had to be the priority over working with vendors to establish standards. We have met with vendors and tried to encourage self-regulation to not only improve quality and transparency for consumers, but to make them acceptable to the FDA and public health groups. Some vendors are meeting and working on this.

So, if anyone has any doubt as to my motives, I will say that I DO support standards and regulations. I do NOT think that vendors should have free reign to do whatever they want and that consumers should be able to make informed decisions. I do NOT work for any vendors nor do I place vendors interests above the interests of consumers, as I am a consumer myself. I want to know that my liquid was produced in a sanitary facility and that it is free of unnecessary toxic ingredients and I feel that is the right of every consumer. If people go look at my old posts, they will see that I have called for accurate labels and child-resistant packaging, but have been shut down on the topic. Consumers were actually the most fierce opponents, asking "What right does CASAA have to speak for me and impose standards?" I agreed to be on the CASAA board because I believe in e-cigarettes as a safer alternative, not because I support the industry to make money any way they can.

If anyone has any doubts that CASAA is anything more than a group of unpaid volunteer vapers who are simply fighting for your right to access smokeless alternatives such as e-cigarettes, I invite you to join and make CASAA what you think it SHOULD be. We are doing everything we can to keep e-cigarettes legal and we can use all of the help we can get. We do not cater to vendors nor put their interests above vaper interests. When their behavior sheds a negative light on e-cigarettes (such as misleading claims) we call them on it. We even wrote an article about how to avoid unscrupulous vendors.

CASAA is NOT just the board of directors - it's ALL of it's members and we are only as strong as our member involvement. If our members want the board to go in a different direction or address different issues, they need to speak up and participate in the process. We are not some big, federally-funded or industry-funded group. There are a handful of board members and not even all 50 states have had people step up to be Regional Reps. Many of us spend a lot of money out of our own pockets to fight for this cause and spend hours and hours working on it, because we believe in it. To be accused of being industry shills is just a slap in the face and completely undeserved.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but it always makes me upset when people attack CASAA when all we are are vapers like you trying to keep e-cigarettes on the market. And when people question our motives and ask why we don't do this or that, when they haven't even joined or donated or offered to help, that really frustrates me. If you think we aren't doing enough then join us and help!

Anyhow, I hope that gives people perspective and you understand that I am trying to protect e-cigarettes, not e-cigarette companies when I suggest caution about how we approach these issues. I know it seems stupid to be so concerned about semantics and politics, but that is all we deal with in CASAA. If you guys only knew all of the politics involved, it would boggle your minds - I know it did mine!

As far as saying it is "safe" I have said we just don't know, but it doesn't seem dangerous to ME. That means, for MY own personal use. I have also said repreatedly that people have a right to know what is in their liquid and the right to choose not to use it if they feel it is dangerous. At no point did I say that is WASN'T dangerous at these levels, just that we can't assume it is, either.

 

[markarich159]

A comment was made that basically, if we trust Max from FlavourArt's calculations, and assume that every diy'er and vendor uses his exact recipe for diacetyl containing liquid, we're looking at a trace amount of possible diacetyl inhalation.

Here's the problem (aside from the math, I'll let a DIYer who uses FA's juice chime in on that) - I think we can all agree that .02 ppm (particles per million) is also a trace amount. For us, lay-people, "trace amount" usually equals "so small as not to concern yourself with." But in the study I keep referencing from 2006, (http://defendingscience.org/case_studies/upload/Kanwal.pdf) at a mean exposure of .02ppm, a factory worker exposed to diacetyl experienced lung problems. A TRACE amount.

The question was posed "Does the diacetyl in vapor even reach 0.02ppm?"

In another related thread I addressed this issue from a perspective that is being missed(you can't extrapolate gas phase concentrations directly from liquid concentrations). Rather then retype the post. I will copy and paste:

Unfortunately, "the numbers" on this matter are far from settled. Besides the fact that several different toxic inhalation ppm's are quoted in different available diacetly study data; There is no way to correctly extrapolate ppm in liquid form to ppm in the vapor/gaseous state(especially with the very limited amount of datum available for vaping in general). Variables such as differential vapor pressures at temperature for the myriad of constituents in not only the flavoring component(s) but also the rest of the vaping solution would need to be known exactly in order to approach a workable diacetyl inhalation concentration; airflow rate through the atomizer would also have to be considered; etc....(you get the point, the variables are a mathematical nightmare). The critical figure you would have to know would be the actual bronchiolar toxic diacetyl concentration which causes the histological effects seen in bronchiolitis obliterans and this is not clearly known nor is the bronchiolar concentration of diacetyl acheived through vaping suspect flavors(further studies would need to be performed to determine this exactly).

The fact that a highly suspected causual relationship exists between diacetyl inhalation and a disease of the magnitude and consequence of Brochiolitis obliterans should be enough to warrant extreme concern & to insist upon diacetyl's(and other similar pulmonotoxic agents) absence in any inhaled product.

 

[kristin]

IAt this point I have nothing to say about the current advocacy group. Apparently it is not a consumer advocacy group and has no interest in the safety of juices for sale.

We are a consumer advocacy group promoting the availability of smokeless alternatives. I dont see how you cannot see that we are fighting for your right (and of uninformed smokers) to information and access to smokeless alternatives.

Never once did I say CASAA has "no interest" in the safety of liquids for sale, only that it isn't within our capacity to regulate the industry.

 

[Java_Az]

Personally I will not be making any juice that has diacetyl in it. I only have one Flavour Art flavor and luckly it doesnt have diacetyl in it. Doesnt matter even if they come out with a study that says below these levels it is safe. Still not going to use it. Just like aspartame that you find in just about everything sugar free these days. It is for sure a poison in large enough doses but they say it is safe in small quantities. I choose not to put that in my body in any levels. Better safe then sorry is my motto

 

[Automaton]

I don't get what more there is to say about this.

We have established that there are no studies on, and no reported cases EVER of diacetyl-related injury at the levels that are possible in e-juice.

There is literally zero information on it. So people who are totally convinced this is poisonous at this level have no evidence. People who are totally convinced it's not have no evidence. No one has any evidence of anything.

There are only two reasonable positions, from a personal standpoint.

1. Since there are no reported cases of diacetyl-related injury at these levels, you are unlikely to be the first, OR
2. That it is not a bad idea to avoid it all together, since we really don't know what is possible.

And no matter which conclusion you come to, we can all agree it needs more research.

As Kristin states, it is also true that there is literally nothing in e-juice that was intended for the purposes we use it for. It is probably all dangerous to varying degrees. Diacetyl is just the flavor of the week, no pun intended. I'm sure if you tore apart an e-juice recipe, you could give yourself a panic attack all day long with what you would find about those ingredients.

We have established that it isn't CASAA's job to police the e-juice industry. At present, no one has taken that role. So if you want to see it, go off somewhere and organize.

There is nothing more to say about this issue. I don't get why it's still going on, or what the point of this thread is.

 

[SimpleSins]

Never once did I say CASAA has "no interest" in the safety of liquids for sale, only that it isn't within our capacity to regulate the industry.

With all due respect, that seems to be a bit of a cop-out. Using again my example of Ralph Nader, he wasn't in any capacity to regulate any of the industries he impacted, either, but he was responsible for saving the lives of a lot of people, even while he was probably being labeled a paranoid panic-stricken lunatic (I know my Corvair-driving grandfather thought so). And if the industry cannot be counted on to look out for its own safety issues, especially with regard to something whose hazards in the form we use it are known (the only thing even remotely in question is the 'safe' quantity), then it seems to me that is the type of behavior that essentially rolls out a red carpet to the FDA to step in and save us from our foibles.

 

[shanagan]

We are a consumer advocacy group promoting the availability of smokeless alternatives. I dont see how you cannot see that we are fighting for your right (and of uninformed smokers) to information and access to smokeless alternatives.

Never once did I say CASAA has "no interest" in the safety of liquids for sale, only that it isn't within our capacity to regulate the industry.

I never said CASAA was not working to promote the availability of smokeless alternatives. I understand that your mission is keep the product & information available.

I stand by my statement that there is no interest in the safety of liquids for sale, based upon the discussion I've seen on the boards. In fact, I believe you expressly suggested or rather seconded that we come up with an alternate safety advocacy group.

 

[CHUCKLEHEAD]

I agree we need regulation and standards ! But two of the biggest suppliers get all thier juice from China.Are we gonna trust their Standards and regulations? And trust me the suppliers i am talking about will put American on any thing even a E-cigg! lol

 

[tweazee]

hmmm -- this tread is still open
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...uppliers-remove-diacetyl-their-e-liquids.html

 

[Automaton]

I don't get why you people don't understand the concept of purpose. Certain organizations have certain purposes.

CASAA has NEVER said that their purpose was to be the safety police of anything. Never, never, never. They have always been promoting awareness and availability of smokeless alternatives.

One organization can't do everything. That's why we have many organizations on any given subject matter.

How can you not get this?

 

[shanagan]

hmmm -- this tread is still open
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...uppliers-remove-diacetyl-their-e-liquids.html

That was the one I referenced as getting a bit unwieldy, size-wise. It becomes next to impossible to expect someone who hasn't been on the thread from the start to read the entire thread. Aka "tl;dr" - too long; didn't read.

 

[shanagan]

I don't get why you people don't understand the concept of purpose. Certain organizations have certain purposes.

CASAA has NEVER said that their purpose was to be the safety police of anything. Never, never, never. They have always been promoting awareness and availability of smokeless alternatives.

One organization can't do everything. That's why we have many organizations on any given subject matter.

How can you not get this?

Then with all due respect to Kristin, she might consider prefacing her opinion posts as coming from nothing more than an individual consumer.

ETA: I'm kind of with y'all here, I don't see it as a CASAA issue, unless a CASAA representative is weighing in with what seems to be an industry-protective stance.

 

[kristin]

With all due respect, that seems to be a bit of a cop-out. Using again my example of Ralph Nader, he wasn't in any capacity to regulate any of the industries he impacted, either, but he was responsible for saving the lives of a lot of people, even while he was probably being labeled a paranoid panic-stricken lunatic (I know my Corvair-driving grandfather thought so). And if the industry cannot be counted on to look out for its own safety issues, especially with regard to something whose hazards in the form we use it are known (the only thing even remotely in question is the 'safe' quantity), then it seems to me that is the type of behavior that essentially rolls out a red carpet to the FDA to step in and save us from our foibles.

Simple, isn't that the FDA's job?? CASAA supports reasonable regulation. How is it a cop out to say that we don't have the manpower, funds or support to monitor all of these companies? We simply don't! Who is going to travel to all of these locations to see production standards? Who is goiong to pay for testing to be sure the vendor is telling the truth about their ingredients? How are companies who don't meet standards going to be forced to comply by a private group?

CASAA feels it's responsibility is to get the truth out about the safety of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco compared to smoking and to force the FDA and health groups to also tell the truth. The truth WILL save millions of lives.

Overall, if CASAA stops it's advocacy for e-cigarettes and turns all of it's resources to policing vendors, who will we be regulating once the misinformation gets e-cigs banned?

Once the FDA loses in court and e-cigs are regulated as tobacco products, all of those standards and requirements will come into play. The companies will be forced to comply to standards probably more excessive than vapers even are asking for. But unless CASAA continues to fight for the truth, it won't be regulation we are facing, but outright bans.

Like I mentioned before, maybe CASAA's focus will be able to change to be more of an advocate of consumers fighting for good business practicies and production standards once we've assured that e-cigarettes are going to be allowed to remain on the market.