everyone seems to be missing the main point, and that is that great tasting eliquid can be made without D/AP. so why put something in your eliquid that is potentially dangerous, that doesn't even need to be in it?
I really don't think anyone in this discussion is missing this point. Just like I don't think the anti-DA crowd misses the point that there is very little to no actual harm to vapers associated with DA/AP. Admittedly, it is downplayed (on both counts).
But, I think of DA as needing to be removed rather than not added. I question the notion of it being intentionally added. It is naturally occurring in flavors. Dr. F. recommendation for flavoring, from what I recall, is to go with the synthetic substitutes (or the man-made stuff). It is so very rare that the synthetic substitute works out for us (humanity) in the long run that I don't see why there isn't high level of skepticism from all people on that end. Even Dr. F. and Kurt have said it could pose problems down the road, but they feel it is likely better for inhalation than DA.
Also, the way I've pretty much always understood the Dr. F. angle on this is when he says it ought to be avoided, he means at the level of flavor manufacturing, and not below that on the supply chain. So, again I'll call out
@KFarsalinos and/or
@Kurt to chime in, because us arguing about this is I believe really not helping other than to divide the community. I can't believe, even for a second, that these scientists wished for it to divide the community. But when you use non-scientific assertions like "this should happen," IMO, that is what you get - a little panic from laypeople who aren't clear on how avoidance occurs. If they do weigh in on this thread, I do wonder if they really believe we, consumers, ought to be pushing for DA-free liquids on vendors, and if they realize that this feeds into anti-vaping rhetoric / goals? I could say more here that deals with politics of situation, but it would help immensely if either of those two weighed in / updated things, because I do think a substantial portion of the anti-DA crowd bases their entire position on what either of these two will say or have said.
I do wish to make clear that we currently have very little to no harm associated with vapers inhaling DA through their eLiquid, just as we also have very little to no harm associated with vapers inhaling the substitutes fro DA in eLiquid. The idea of switching over with that very key fact in place will literally tell us nothing if it stays the case of "little to no harm" and if it does change to "more than a little" (but still low), it would mean that we would've arguably been better off, at the very least, keeping DA-laced eLiquids available.
So, disclosure would be nice. It surely would. But it would be very counter productive if it is mandatory or in vein of "they should." That is passing the buck. If "should" is entering the picture, and you are that concerned, 'you should be doing your own testing.' That is not passing the buck, but taking responsibility and is far more likely to be information that you can actually have confidence in.
And to me, this is where we are at right now as consumers. Are we wanting to pass the buck on responsibility for our concerns, or are we willing to do what it takes to address the concerns we say we have (individually)? To say industry needs to do more feeds into the goals for our opposition. At whatever level that is debated, I welcome that debate because it is key philosophical / practical point moving forward.
