Diacetyl Free - Does it Matter?

[skoony]

I do trust Dr. F because he tells it like it is whether his findings reflect good or bad on vaping...unlike others who support his work only by cherry picking what they want to hear and selectively determining what they support which is only pro vaping findings.

Dr. F first said diketones were potentially harmful and could be removed if necessary.
then he said diketones were a potential risk and should be removed.
Then he said they were a risk and had no business in the juice.
these three statements mean three different things.
do you understand the differences?

If regulations come down (which i don't want to see) in these areas that have been a problem then the vendors and those who support these vendors are to blame for it because they have given a legit reason for gov to act on it.

Wrong. The FDA reason for regulating has been the same since day one.
It looks like smoking and its replacing smoking and we are the ones who decide
what replaces what in agreement with the other stakeholders want.
We as the end users are not stakeholders.

i do expect transparency and honestly from vendors on these matters and not lies and false claims about their products in attempting to make a buck..

The vendors were not lying or making false claims as they didn't even know what a
diketone was. acetyl and diacetyl were never listed as a separate ingredient.
They were constituent compounds in the flavor. By the time this was sorted out
the witch hunts had begun. If you remember correctly all but a very few of us on
these forums new the issues involved.
This is the only industry I know where some expect non-verified concerns be
addressed immediately if not sooner. First identify a (real) problem.
approach the vendors with your concern and start a dialogue. Determine
the scope of the problem. Make changes addressing the concern.
Here it goes from one phone call or two directly to crucifixions in about
two days. As far as transparency goes its just a meaningless buzz word used
as an excuse to jerk people around.

Regards
Mike

 

[Jman8]

I do trust Dr. F because he tells it like it is whether his findings reflect good or bad on vaping...unlike others who support his work only by cherry picking what they want to hear and selectively determining what they support which is only pro vaping findings.

I be a cherry picker on Dr. F. data because as I understand science, you better be able to back up your assertions with science.

So Dr. F. has said it best to avoid flavors with DA/AP. I call that out as non-scientific assertion because in reality, it is. It is his informed opinion. I ask for evidence currently observable to back up his informed opinion, and I get very little other than "better to act now than wait for someone to be harmed later." I have zero issue with how I've conducted myself in relation to him on this issue. So little issue that I will in this sentence call @KFarsalinos and/or @Kurt to this thread so they can speak for themselves.

On the other report that he's done that I will cite from time to time, there is scientific data to support the claim that SHV is arguably less harmful than human breath, and/or that it contains less VOC's than human breath. Now if Dr. F. said as a result of that data that all vapers should never vape around anyone, including outdoors, I'd be asking for him to back that up with data.

If regulations come down (which i don't want to see) in these areas that have been a problem then the vendors and those who support these vendors are to blame for it because they have given a legit reason for gov to act on it. But i am sure many will continue to point the finger at gov conspiracies theories in a area where it was actually caused by the practices by some in the vaping industry. The gov is guilty of a lot of things..but sometimes it's our own crap that causes it too and this is one area that regulations will be self inflicted by vendors and the vapers who supported them and kept them in business.

I'm thinking even Dr. F. wouldn't agree with this assertion. Perhaps not, but I'd like to see him weigh in on this. You are saying (twice now) that regulations on DA will be solely the responsibility of vendors who have had opportunity to correct the issue (whatever that means) and not the responsibility of zealous regulators / ANTZ-like entities. I so strongly disagree with this that each time you continue to bring it up and I see it, I will offer my rebuttal. Hopefully we don't have to keep doing this, but you are now taking second opportunity to say vendors are to blame for regulations.

As I've noted in this thread, FDA is asking for information from prospective applicants on this chemical and about 10 others. As I understand it, it has red flag issues with FDA. I'm sure there are many other chemicals they'd want information on, but not at same level of scrutiny as those 10 or so. And FDA will justify that testing costs be in the tens of thousands of dollars, and you are suggesting if it costs that much (by FDA standards), it is entirely the responsibility of the vendors. Plus suggesting that anyone that disagrees with your take on this is prone to conspiracy theories and not applying responsibility / blame accurately.

I've also noted that I really do believe the FDA will allow for product to be sold with DA/AP in it, and that the information must be disclosed to the FDA, but that doesn't mean the applicant (vendor) will be required to disclose it to the consumer. If they are, I would expect it to be a label warning along lines of, "this product may contain diacetyl." Within the FDA database, it would be known exactly how much it contains, but to the consumer in the FDA market, it would not.

I do not believe vendors should be required to test nor do i think diketones should be removed...i do expect transparency and honestly from vendors on these matters and not lies and false claims about their products in attempting to make a buck....and here is where the core problem is.

Transparency is tricky. I wish it weren't, but am glad to walk through that discussion to realize how it would be tricky. And essentially if it is just you and I having that discussion (or even say 10 of us), our version of transparency may not match what another segment of the vaping population expects. Plus not match what FDA expects. I currently think the anti-diacetyl crowd has higher standard of transparency for what the consumer deserves than what the FDA even thinks. That is how zealous I think the anti-DA crowd has become.

Right now, if all vaping vendors (that make eLiquid) were fully transparent, it would benefit DIYers more than anyone. Consumers concerned about DA/AP would benefit, but consumers that potentially care about DA/AP are likely to not realize any benefit unless someone indoctrinates them with attitude of "you should care!" I see them as not even understanding the conveyed information and instead relying on another to answer, "will this kill me or not" and go from there. Us who are okay with DA/AP issues as they are right now in industry would likely not mind full transparency, but would be greatly concerned with how it would impact the market. Once best vendors around are giving exact keys on how they produce their great products, they suddenly become far less necessary as there will always be others (i.e. China) that can make EXACT SAME product with far less overhead. DIYers would be bragging that they can make the best loved flavor even better than that vendor.

 

[DeAnna2112]

Dr. F first said diketones were potentially harmful and could be removed if necessary.
then he said diketones were a potential risk and should be removed.
Then he said they were a risk and had no business in the juice.
these three statements mean three different things.
do you understand the differences?

Wrong. The FDA reason for regulating has been the same since day one.
It looks like smoking and its replacing smoking and we are the ones who decide
what replaces what in agreement with the other stakeholders want.
We as the end users are not stakeholders.

The vendors were not lying or making false claims as they didn't even know what a
diketone was. acetyl and diacetyl were never listed as a separate ingredient.
They were constituent compounds in the flavor. By the time this was sorted out
the witch hunts had begun. If you remember correctly all but a very few of us on
these forums new the issues involved.
This is the only industry I know where some expect non-verified concerns be
addressed immediately if not sooner. First identify a (real) problem.
approach the vendors with your concern and start a dialogue. Determine
the scope of the problem. Make changes addressing the concern.
Here it goes from one phone call or two directly to crucifixions in about
two days. As far as transparency goes its just a meaningless buzz word used
as an excuse to jerk people around.

Regards
Mike

Some eliquid sellers have been addressing diketones and keeping them out of their eliquids going all the way back to 2011 and even before that...come on skoony are you really going to play the "they didn't know" card!!

 

[sparkky1]

Some eliquid sellers have been addressing diketones and keeping them out of their eliquids going all the way back to 2011 and even before that...come on skoony are you really going to play the "they didn't know" card!!

Do you know what the word niche market means ? or multi-level marketing scams are ?

 

[skoony]

Some eliquid sellers have been addressing diketones and keeping them out of their eliquids going all the way back to 2011 and even before that...come on skoony are you really going to play the "they didn't know" card!!

It's not a card. In 2011 the diketones controversy was still very much a
fringe sub group amongst many. The manipulations of a very small
but vocal and less than forthright group of individuals have made the issue
what it is today. Relying on the fact that having googled popcorn they
could effectively shut down all discussion of the issue and be saviors
of the world. Any one who opposed their agenda were either hurtful or
hateful and, or, dldn´t care.
Regards
Mike

 

[Robino1]

OK! It is getting VERY close to attacking the POSTER instead of the POST!

Time to take a chill pill and step back for a second to cool off.

A discussion is fine and we encourage the back and forth. Calling names or insinuating names is Not ok.

Viewpoints are allowed even if we don't agree on those viewpoints.

Got it?


Good.

Carry on.... just be more mindful.

Thanks!!!

 

[Zach M]

So if you had the ability to order juice from said company and there 3rd party test showed no trace amounts of first two compounds on your list above, would it be safe to say you would be more inclined to order from and "trust" them more ?

I would trust them more if they said it did not contain those two compounds and lab results came back saying it did not contain those compounds....I however don't really care about all the other ingredients, just wanted to see what people thought but everyone here goes from 0 to 100 in 0.2 seconds....I personally try to avoid diacetyl but it is hard to get all the details from a juice manufacture

The other issue is the suppliers for juice....juice manufacture may ask if the product contains X chemical, they are told no so they make juice with it...then the juice gets tested and turns out X chemical is in the juice but the manufacture didn't know about it...Its a complex situation, I don't think we have a "Yes" or "No" answer per say - just have to work it out and find a solid place to stand

 

[Zach M]

I did, and is why the stipulation "unless they are best in the business" covers whatever you think I may have been overlooking.

All my other points dealing with costs are things you, and others, have not addressed.

On the financial side, for consumers, if a vaper could get what is currently the best device around (non-clone) for $150, whereas normal cost is say $500, I think many would jump at that. But ask that same consumer to pay for testing that would give them peace of mind, and suddenly the cost is astronomical. If vendor applied same logic, they'd be seen as greedy. When a consumer does it, what do we say then about that consumer?

What is your point on cost? That if you make juice, you wont make enough profit to cover testing the product and make a profit? If you, or anyone here - which people claim, have done DYI juice then you know how cheap it is....even if someone is selling a "house blend" for $8, they are still making mad money.

On the "financial side", for consumers (using your example of a device) its like saying okay purchase this mod / tank for $150. Now this $150 product may or may not shock you or stop working, if you want to know if the device will electric you or stop working pay $1,500 ($1500 is same ratio of a bottle of a juice : testing juice) to test it and make sure you wont run into any problems.

Tell me how that would make sense? Or in a real world example, go to the store and buy a surge protector - it is not guaranteed to be safe or blow a fuse. Now you can either pay $300 to see if it is going to work as intended or just take it as is and not worry about the potential danger

 

[sparkky1]

I would trust them more if they said it did not contain those two compounds and lab results came back saying it did not contain those compounds....I however don't really care about all the other ingredients, just wanted to see what people thought but everyone here goes from 0 to 100 in 0.2 seconds....I personally try to avoid diacetyl but it is hard to get all the details from a juice manufacture

The other issue is the suppliers for juice....juice manufacture may ask if the product contains X chemical, they are told no so they make juice with it...then the juice gets tested and turns out X chemical is in the juice but the manufacture didn't know about it...Its a complex situation, I don't think we have a "Yes" or "No" answer per say - just have to work it out and find a solid place to stand

It's really not that hard if you look Premium USA Made E-Liquid & E-juice, Manufactured in Tennessee at Mountain Oak Vapors
There's a whole list on the diketone free vendors post ............

 

[Zach M]

It's really not that hard if you look Premium USA Made E-Liquid & E-juice, Manufactured in Tennessee at Mountain Oak Vapors
There's a whole list on the diketone free vendors post ............

I don't think it is that hard to find now either, a lot of companies will not "boast" if they are diacetyl free - especially those that have juices tested from a 3rd party.
I think at this point I'm just more interested in seeing how much this "issue" or "non-issue" matters to people...

Transparency is tricky. I wish it weren't, but am glad to walk through that discussion to realize how it would be tricky. And essentially if it is just you and I having that discussion (or even say 10 of us), our version of transparency may not match what another segment of the vaping population expects.

I'm at the point where I just want some transparency / expectation of transparency from juice makers..Granted, if you are purchasing a house blend or doing DYI or getting juice from you friends buddy that makes it, thats what ever - whole other ball game...However, when it comes from this larger people I don't think it is that ludicrous to ask them what is in the juice.

 

[Jman8]

What is your point on cost? That if you make juice, you wont make enough profit to cover testing the product and make a profit? If you, or anyone here - which people claim, have done DYI juice then you know how cheap it is....even if someone is selling a "house blend" for $8, they are still making mad money.

It's cheap to DIY cause there is zero overhead. Even technically that's not accurate, but I doubt any DIYer is paying themselves a wage for the time they take to DIY. Nor are they paying to advertise. Nor to rent space. Nor to pay for office supplies specific for DIY. So on and so forth.

And this wasn't even the point I brought up earlier about costs.

If it is $150 a pop (minus reports), then if you have 8 different levels of PG-VG and 5 different levels of nic content, it is plausible that you'd have to pay $2000 for each flavor. I would acknowledge it is possible you wouldn't have to pay that. But as stated earlier, a scientific type just needs to come out and suggest that DA content could be impacted by more (or less) PG, and suddenly all 8 versions would need testing. The disclosure demanding group would insist upon it. Probably saying things like "really for just $1000 more, you can't take the time to make sure your product is safe? You deserve to be out of the market if that's the case." Same scenario with nic content.

Plus, there's the companies that currently offer hundreds, if not millions, of flavors or flavor combinations. Let's say it is around 400 base flavors that these companies are offering, and so at the $150 price, that would be around $60,000. Then if the PG/VG and nic content stuff comes in, you could add in that figure times say 10, to be accurate. And then to be even more accurate, if these companies offer flavor combos, it is plausible that all combinations would need additional testing. So the one that offers 14 million combos (that I go with) would need to plan on paying around $210 million.

Plus, as stated before, what if FDA and/or concerned consumers say the $150 tester doesn't cut it (for them)? That the vendors aren't taking the extra step they feel is needed. Or even more practical, let's say the $150 tester shows DA level at .003 in a particular liquid, but the $500 tester shows same exact liquid is at .00885929029 of DA. Headlines from anti types would say that more exact testing shows almost 3 times what the cheap guys do, and thus can we really trust any of the results previously done by the cheap guys? So, then all vendors that went with the less model would a) have to eat that cost and b) shell out another $500 for all variations of each eLiquid to get products tested. Plus the whole political fall out that would inevitably occur if 2 third party testers are showing different results. Anti DA crowd would have yet another justification (in their mind) for saying there is even more reason to not trust vendors and the testers they choose.

On the "financial side", for consumers (using your example of a device) its like saying okay purchase this mod / tank for $150. Now this $150 product may or may not shock you or stop working, if you want to know if the device will electric you or stop working pay $1,500 ($1500 is same ratio of a bottle of a juice : testing juice) to test it and make sure you wont run into any problems.

Tell me how that would make sense? Or in a real world example, go to the store and buy a surge protector - it is not guaranteed to be safe or blow a fuse. Now you can either pay $300 to see if it is going to work as intended or just take it as is and not worry about the potential danger

I'll accept the $1500 figure based on reasoning you are providing, but not the problem you are citing. For that analogy to make sense to me in way you are getting at, it would have to be situation where the device may or may not give you cooties over 30 years of use. And that cooties is to be seen as a really big deal, that vendors ought to be testing for. Those of us who don't think cooties are a big deal are instead suggesting the anti-cootie crowd pay the $1500 to find out for sure if their products have them, rather than putting faith in vendors. If cooties are that big of a deal for you, why wouldn't you pay the $1500???

 

[sparkky1]

I don't think it is that hard to find now either, a lot of companies will not "boast" if they are diacetyl free - especially those that have juices tested from a 3rd party.
I think at this point I'm just more interested in seeing how much this "issue" or "non-issue" matters to people...


I'm at the point where I just want some transparency / expectation of transparency from juice makers..Granted, if you are purchasing a house blend or doing DYI or getting juice from you friends buddy that makes it, thats what ever - whole other ball game...However, when it comes from this larger people I don't think it is that ludicrous to ask them what is in the juice.

Well the issue for me was when I was diagnosed with copd 2 + years ago and had breathing problems or wheezing more like, hacking myself to sleep, just about 2 packs a day for 27 years.
So my theory came from this idea : Diacetyl
Acetyl Propionyl
Butyric Acid
Acetoins (in general)
diethylene glycol (DEG)
diketones pg/vg
VS
Cigarette Ingredients - Chemicals in Cigarettes to me it was a no brainer as far as "harm reduction" and since has dramatically changed my life for the better................
You do need to put into perspective that you are inhaling artificial flavoring which is FDA approved for food or beverage, not one agency nor person has "ever" said it was completely harmless, don't need a licence to produce / sell it nor do you need health inspections , even taking out said compounds x,y,z does that guarantee you less of a chance for lung infections ? so do you really gain "trust" of a vendor from an enthalpy test ?
Sounds a little like how many people eat mcdonalds / fast food and how many people prefer to be GMO free and does it matter ?

 

[DC2]

I'm at the point where I just want some transparency / expectation of transparency from juice makers..Granted, if you are purchasing a house blend or doing DYI or getting juice from you friends buddy that makes it, thats what ever - whole other ball game...However, when it comes from this larger people I don't think it is that ludicrous to ask them what is in the juice.

I was thinking of buying a ticket on the Transparency Train until I read your post above.
Not that your post changed my mind, but something just clicked.

If you have transparency, then people are free to buy or not buy what they want.
And if you do NOT have transparency, then people are still free to buy or not buy what they want.

So it seems to me that a person can make the same decision either way...

Transparency but still contains diketones then don't buy.
No transparency then don't buy.

Having said all that, it is the concerns of those who are concerned that has led to changes.
There are now some who provide transparency, and likely would not have bothered otherwise.

So yeah, there you go.
Pick a side if you absolutely must.

 

[skoony]

I was thinking of buying a ticket on the Transparency Train until I read your post above.
Not that your post changed my mind, but something just clicked.

Transparency is a concept with so many meanings to so many people it has
become useless. Its a buzz word who's only usage denotes a desire by some
to control,dislodge or,justify an argument when one can't do so with facts.

Regards
Mike

 

[JavaJunkie]

I have no idea (still) what are the answers to some important questions about diacetyl;

for example:
1: Is diacetyl something added in, like an option ?
I get the impression that it is no some additive, but instead either a part of some flavorings; or maybe it is not really part of some flavorings but something used in the process of the flavour extraction process; or maybe it's something to do with artificial flavorings
2: is diacetyl something produced in mixing ?? Sometimes it sounds like the juice makers don't actually put diacetyl in their juice, but it ends up being there

The only thing that seems to be fairly certain is the diacetyl issue has something to do with flavorings, so for starters, anybody who wants to avoid it can just use unflavored

There might be some company out there that's using diacetyl as a raw ingredient like popcorn makers do, but for most e-liquids diacetyl is something that's hidden in an ingredient.

This is a bigger problem for older companies. When I first started vaping diacetyl wasn't on the RADAR. Vapers weren't asking about it and vendors weren't thinking about it. Then people started asking about it and vendors asked their flavor vendors about it. Flavor vendors, who are meant for food not inhalation, told a lot of vendors that their flavorings didn't include it. Vendors told their customers that their flavors didn't have it. Everyone was happy for a while. Then testing happened. Juices that were sold as diacetyl free tested with detectable levels of diacetyl. Vapers grabbed their pitchforks and vendors looked at their flavor vendors. Flavor vendors shrugged and some left the industry forcing vendors to reformulate which angered vapers. Now people look for lab tests and some vendors conduct lab tests before releasing new flavors while trying to play catch-up with their existing flavors.

Your second scenario happens too. Diacetyl is a natural organic compound. It occurs naturally and sometimes two flavor ingredients that do not contain diacetyl will create it when they're blended together. This is another reason for testing. No one added it, but it's still there.

What's next? What ingredient will we be talking about in 5 years? Eventually the diacetyl discussion will quiet down and then we'll find something else that makes us think the sky is falling. Will our community work with vendors to get that settled or will we grab our pitchforks again?

 

[Asbestos4004]

Ive never understood the push to ban d/ap. We don't know anything. There's a chance that our cotton, or our wire, or whatever mystery metal china decided to use this week to build your decks.. ...it could all prove to be worse than d/ap. We just don't know yet.
I'm all for juice companies being honest. I'm also all for making my own decisions. Why can't more people just avoid what they want to avoid without going balls out on a witch hunt? I like diacytl in my juice. I'm more afraid of a liquid that melts plastic in minutes than a creamy custard that is more than likely harmless. Where are the "ban citrus and cinnamon" threads?
Between diacytl and clueless b&m employees, cloud chasing and tootie puffin, clone and authentic...... We sure do seem rather arrogant and whiny for a group of folks who should be grateful and happy.

 

[Gauntlgrym]

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?

that would be like me making a dinner for guests, and my guests all say "we MIGHT be allergic to peanuts, not sure though." so then i decide to make peanut chicken for dinner, even though i have other options.

 

[Asbestos4004]

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?

that would be like me making a dinner for guests, and one of the guests says "i MIGHT be allergic to peanuts, not sure though." so then i decide to make peanut chicken for dinner, even though i have other options.

That seems to be a rather weak point. And your analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be if your guest said "I might be allergic to peanuts" and you decided to try to ban peanuts and have them removed from all foods. Then you could tell everyone how stupid it is to eat real peanut butter when you can make perfectly fine sandwiches without it.

 

[motordude]

I agree with the Asbestos.
I'm beginning to think nic causes paranoia. Probably from all those yrs that BT lied to us.

 

[AzPlumber]

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?

that would be like me making a dinner for guests, and my guests all say "we MIGHT be allergic to peanuts, not sure though." so then i decide to make peanut chicken for dinner, even though i have other options.

Great tasting juice can be made without nicotine also and I don't see anyone calling for its removal. Nicotine is a poison that will kill you, same argument for Diacetyl removal.