Diacetyl Free - Does it Matter?

[AzPlumber]

i agree with moonbag on this. "recreational nicotine" makes no sense. that's like saying i'm a "recreational crack user." it's an addictive substance. if you start using it, you will most likely become addicted, and then it's not recreational anymore.

the MASS MAJORITY of people NEED nic in the eliquid in order to quit smoking, period.
quit trying to compare nicotine to D/AP just to try and win an argument. they are not comparable.

You continue to avoid the question so i will hypothetically answer it for you. After reading it you will understand exactly what my point is.

You like nicotine, in fact I suspect you enjoy nicotine. By using it you accept any potential risks, known or unknown and you don't want some internet group of crusaders calling for its removal from your vape.

 

[Gauntlgrym]

ETA: After reading thru 100% of document, this is IMO, currently "biggest deal facing vaping community." To not see this lawsuit as ANTZ attack on industry is IMO fallacious. Time for us to either stop dividing ourselves over this issue, or if anti-DA crowd is that serious about the concern, time to stand behind plaintiffs and be on the side that seeks to bankrupt any of those vendors that claimed DA-free and were "lying" to consumers.

i agree. we need to stand together on issues like D/AP.
fact is, you might think D/AP is overblown, and i might be making a bigger deal about it than it is.

but guess what? if D/AP continues to show up in eliquids......it's just one more piece of ammo that the government can use against vaping. cause the FDA thinks D/AP are a big deal for sure.
if you don't want liquid to be D/AP free because of health concerns, you should at least want it to be D/AP free to give the FDA less things to point at and say "see this here....it makes vaping bad."

 

[Gauntlgrym]

You continue to avoid the question so i will hypothetically answer it for you. After reading it you will understand exactly what my point is.

You like nicotine, in fact I suspect you enjoy nicotine. By using it you accept any potential risks, known or unknown and you don't want some internet group of crusaders calling for its removal from your vape.

you can't remove something from a product that is essential for said product to work correctly. like a car without an engine

you are trying to compare apples to oranges to make a point valid, that is not valid.

 

[skoony]

DA is no worse than PG/VG? interesting. havn't heard that one before.
any evidence to back that up?

This was your response.

reread it yourself, it's 100% exactly what you said. you said:
"I might add DA has shown as much if any harm as anything else in the juice including
PG,VG,any other flavoring and,nicotine.
Regards
Mike"

that was the entire post, not just part of the post. so it wasn't taken out of context.

but whatever..... you corrected it.
you had me quite curious though. when i first saw what you said, i thought to myself "if this is true, then it changes everything." lol

I didn't say it was no worse. I also didn't say it was any better. E-juice as a whole seems
to be quite safe. Remember we are not talking about raw chemicals in ambient air.
The PG/VG is used to evenly disperse and suspend the nicotine and or flavorings.
A personal vaporizer is not a mini popcorn processing plant.

but guess what? if D/AP continues to show up in eliquids......it's just one more piece of ammo that the government can use against vaping. cause the FDA thinks D/AP are a big deal for sure.

Another piece of ammo quite similar to the elusive cloud blower roaming the isles of Walmart.
Often reported. Rarely photographed. As far as I can tell there are more genuine pictures of
Big Foot floating around the nets.

Regards
Mike

 

[AzPlumber]

you can't remove something from a product that is essential for said product to work correctly. like a car without an engine

you are trying to compare apples to oranges to make a point valid, that is not valid.

I'm done here, your position is that all vapers are nicotine addicts. You don't believe anyone can casually use nicotine without getting hooked. And my point is invalid. We are at a stalemate.

 

[DeAnna2112]

It's about time folks started standing up and saying enough is enough with these types of vendors!!

 

[skoony]

It's about time folks started standing up and saying enough is enough with these types of vendors!!

Do you mean the types of vendors that make products that 99.9% of their customers love?
The types of vendors who would not trash an entire product line because of unfounded
concerns by about 0.01% of vapers most of which were not even customers?
The types of vendors who get bombarded with emails and calls about something
they had no idea of what it was or why some were concerned?
The types of vendors that when one sales clerk misspoke creating the big
lie?
The types of vendors who got ambushed by competitors who used the DA
controversy as a marketing tool?
Seems legit to me.

Regards
mike

 

[sparkky1]

i agree. we need to stand together on issues like D/AP.
fact is, you might think D/AP is overblown, and i might be making a bigger deal about it than it is.

but guess what? if D/AP continues to show up in eliquids......it's just one more piece of ammo that the government can use against vaping. cause the FDA thinks D/AP are a big deal for sure.
if you don't want liquid to be D/AP free because of health concerns, you should at least want it to be D/AP free to give the FDA less things to point at and say "see this here....it makes vaping bad."

Because now your just putting a label on two compounds and calling the substitutes (DAP free) less harmful, how could you seriously stand behind this non fact based theory of "yours" ?
I'm not saying DAP is harmless but what you are advocating to the population is a little misconstrued.If we are going by theory then wouldn't it be safe to say if we took out 36 said know cancer causing compounds including TAR wouldn't you agree that would be harm reduction, I think what your trying to say is if we take out said compounds we will then be reducing harm even more so, theoretically, if you add two more parachutes to yourself that would have to make skydiving less dangerous and you should all agree ?

 

[DeAnna2112]

Do you mean the types of vendors that make products that 99.9% of their customers love?
The types of vendors who would not trash an entire product line because of unfounded
concerns by about 0.01% of vapers most of which were not even customers?
The types of vendors who get bombarded with emails and calls about something
they had no idea of what it was or why some were concerned?
The types of vendors that when one sales clerk misspoke creating the big
lie?
The types of vendors who got ambushed by competitors who used the DA
controversy as a marketing tool?
Seems legit to me.

Regards
mike

Do you mean the types of vendors that make products that 99.9% of their customers love?
and could have continued to do so with proper disclosure


The types of vendors who would not trash an entire product line because of unfounded
concerns by about 0.01% of vapers most of which were not even customers?
Uh..Vendor trashed their own product line by not being honest and not providing disclosure


The types of vendors who get bombarded with emails and calls about something
they had no idea of what it was or why some were concerned?
LOL.. they knew what it was and why there was a concern which is why they conducted their own test earlier on...they just didn't report their findings and continued to make false claims $$$$.... because those findings were off the charts


The types of vendors that when one sales clerk misspoke creating the big
lie?
Yelp this is all over one clerk who misspoke...cough*cough*


The types of vendors who got ambushed by competitors who used the DA
controversy as a marketing tool?
A supposed competitor who actually carried and sold their product that decided to test them to ensure they met their standards after this vendor refused to provide test they had already conducted..ehem!! Course it quickly became clear why they didn't provide the test.


Seems legit to me.
So legit that they now have a lawsuit coming at them and rightfully so

 

[Ryedan]

"recreational nicotine"

Separately they are both just words, but put together they form the most idiotic concept I have ever heard of. I am addicted to nicotine and am trying to break that addiction. I'm almost there.

I weaned off vaping nicotine three years ago. I started using it recreationally after another half year and have been doing that ever since. Vaping nic is not addictive for me.

Best of luck with your journey

Only a self deluded addict is capable of convincing themselves that their expensive vaping habit is solely motivated by their desire for "recreation".

I spend about $15 a week on vaping. It would be less, but I occasionally indulge in a bit of shineyitis. I don't consider that expensive for a hobby that I enjoy.

Not everyone is the same Moonbogg. Luckily most people do understand that

 

[skoony]

Do you mean the types of vendors that make products that 99.9% of their customers love?
and could have continued to do so with proper disclosure


The types of vendors who would not trash an entire product line because of unfounded
concerns by about 0.01% of vapers most of which were not even customers?
Uh..Vendor trashed their own product line by not being honest and not providing disclosure


The types of vendors who get bombarded with emails and calls about something
they had no idea of what it was or why some were concerned?
LOL.. they knew what it was and why there was a concern which is why they conducted their own test earlier on...they just didn't report their findings and continued to make false claims $$$$.... because those findings were off the charts


The types of vendors that when one sales clerk misspoke creating the big
lie?
Yelp this is all over one clerk who misspoke...cough*cough*


The types of vendors who got ambushed by competitors who used the DA
controversy as a marketing tool?
A supposed competitor who actually carried and sold their product that decided to test them to ensure they met their standards after this vendor refused to provide test they had already conducted..ehem!! Course it quickly became clear why they didn't provide the test.


Seems legit to me.
So legit that they now have a lawsuit coming at them and rightfully so

1.What exactly were they supposed to disclose and why? Do you think they were
deliberately poisoning their customer base? If you know something I don't please
inform the lawyers bringing the suite.
2.No,it was a small group of very vocal people who set about to trash them and,
did exactly that.
3. Basically that's what happened. Then they sprung they third party testing.
4. Any one who believes Vaporsmurfs and Cloud Air Nine's DA marketing campaign
was to help us vapers doesn't understand advertising. Two words,"niche marketing".
5. Then rightfully they should sue every manufacturer and vendor who ever made
or sold e-juice. They were all guilty of non-disclosure at one time. Many still are.
If we go by the premise that they should all have known about DA, they are all
guilty.

Regards
Mike

 

[Jman8]

i agree. we need to stand together on issues like D/AP.
fact is, you might think D/AP is overblown, and i might be making a bigger deal about it than it is.

but guess what? if D/AP continues to show up in eliquids......it's just one more piece of ammo that the government can use against vaping. cause the FDA thinks D/AP are a big deal for sure.
if you don't want liquid to be D/AP free because of health concerns, you should at least want it to be D/AP free to give the FDA less things to point at and say "see this here....it makes vaping bad."

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that FDA thinks D/AP is a big deal, for sure. The leaked document has it red flagged. So, that might be your basis. From what I could tell, all currently known substitutes are red flagged as well. Thus equally big deal. I would think FDA would essentially be saying any chemical related to flavoring is something that is red flagged and that FDA would like company to spend say $500,000 on research to prove it is a non problem, both to users and bystanders. If that is not done, then any product with flavoring ought not be allowed on the legal market.

If FDA is successful going that route, then I would think same logic could be tied to all ingredients in eLiquid (including PG/VG). Do a google search on "dangers of inhaling PG" and watch all the hits that come up (all from ANTZ, and most related to vaping).

So, if we are going to be consistent on removal of red flag items, there are a whole bunch of ingredients in eLiquid, arguably all of them, that we'd better be willing to support or draw a line very very soon as to where we would not allow them to cross, and then convince fellow vapers on "why not cross this line?"

To me, you are arguing for a concession to opposition on something that I very much would like to call their bluff on, because there isn't a basis for known harms, to vapers. If I'm one that will not concede on the minors issue, you think I'm going to easily concede on this issue? If you do think this, then you need to come to the table with more than "potential danger" or "makes us look bad." I'm far more likely to stick to principles and let chips fall where they may than side with opposition because I think (or anyone thinks) if we concede on this point, that'll surely be the end of them going harsh on us.

So, IMO if we are going to join sides on this issue, it has to be to defend the use of DA in product. You can still have your personal concern about using it, and even personal choice of avoiding it. But the public face ought to be different, and ought to be based on what can actually be proven, and how much are you willing to give into opposition (i.e. ANTZ-like opposition), and/or how firmly will you oppose them?

 

[Gauntlgrym]

Because now your just putting a label on two compounds and calling the substitutes (DAP free) less harmful, how could you seriously stand behind this non fact based theory of "yours" ?

it's not just "my" theory, it's what Dr. Farsilinos thinks as well. you think his opinions are non-fact based? you think he is on the side of big tobacco/pharma so he is biased?
fact is, no other flavoring compounds have been found to have possible long term side effects that we know of. you can say "well look at this, and look at that. they are probably bad too" all you want. however, D/AP are the only ones that have ANY type of evidence of being unsafe.

so the best we can do (for now) is get rid of D/AP.

I'm not saying DAP is harmless but what you are advocating to the population is a little misconstrued.If we are going by theory then wouldn't it be safe to say if we took out 36 said know cancer causing compounds including TAR wouldn't you agree that would be harm reduction,

if big tobacco would do this, then that would be great. less harmful ciggarettes, yay! what has that got to do with vaping though?

I think what your trying to say is if we take out said compounds we will then be reducing harm even more so, theoretically, if you add two more parachutes to yourself that would have to make skydiving less dangerous and you should all agree ?

yeah, pretty much....
you are safer with 1 parachute and 1 reserve parachute, than you are with just the main parachute. you should agree because it's a fact.

it's like if i said "the earth orbits the sun", and then someone said "i don't agree with that." well, it's too bad you don't agree, but you are wrong.

taking something out of eliquid that is potentially dangerous, makes it statistically less dangeous, period. can't be any argument to that. statistically speaking, it would be safer.

 

[skoony]

it's not just "my" theory, it's what Dr. Farsilinos thinks as well. you think his opinions are non-fact based? you think he is on the side of big tobacco/pharma so he is biased?
fact is, no other flavoring compounds have been found to have possible long term side effects that we know of. you can say "well look at this, and look at that. they are probably bad too" all you want. however, D/AP are the only ones that have ANY type of evidence of being unsafe.

so the best we can do (for now) is get rid of D/AP.

Dr. Farsilinos has not done any research on the toxic effects of diketones other than to note
he found them in the juices he was testing. Of course the good Dr. is entitled to his learned
opinion and that does add weight to it. Despite this he hasn't offered any sources as to what
he is basing his opinion on. This would be helpful.

Regards
Mike

 

[Jman8]

Do you mean the types of vendors that make products that 99.9% of their customers love?
and could have continued to do so with proper disclosure

Yes, all 99.9% of vendors who have not given "proper" disclosure during time of under regulated market. Show me a company that you think has given proper disclosure. And give me the time that a trial lawyer might spend scrutinizing all things they have ever said and I'm 99.9% sure I can find something to use against them.

What will be left is the .1% that have own lawyers/funds to 'properly' defeat such trials. Enter the age of BV/BT taking control of the industry. In this version of legal market, I still believe, strongly believe, that DA will be allowed in product, and exact (or proper) disclosure will not be given to consumers, even while FDA will know exact amount.

The types of vendors who would not trash an entire product line because of unfounded
concerns by about 0.01% of vapers most of which were not even customers?
Uh..Vendor trashed their own product line by not being honest and not providing disclosure

Same answer as above.

Essentially you are coming from full regulation mindset and saying that must be applied to all vendors prior to FDA final rule. If you don't think this is what you are saying, then prepare for a wake up call if you don't resist certain things on principle, rather than your own personal concern / vendetta against particular vendors. Think ANTZ/FDA have companies that are for sure going to be allowed to stay on the legal market because it matches up with your personal version of disclosure?

The types of vendors who get bombarded with emails and calls about something
they had no idea of what it was or why some were concerned?
LOL.. they knew what it was and why there was a concern which is why they conducted their own test earlier on...they just didn't report their findings and continued to make false claims $$$$.... because those findings were off the charts

Getting further and further away from willingness to defend vape industry I see. I'd call you on all this stuff you are saying if I thought you for sure would enter into dialogue on open forum. But pretty sure you'll ignore my post and not address what I'm already calling you out on.

Also wanting to insert here that this to me is how the smoking stuff went down. People think it was only full blown ANTZ operatives that did their dirty work and that's it. IMO, that's around 25% to as much as 60% of the picture, and that the remaining percentage is the masses that chose to go along with whatever they conveyed. Is still happening to this date. As this debate is really really really big, deep and wide then whatever else I say here could be construed as "is that all you're saying about this issue?" The epitome of what I'm getting at is, it takes two types of people to make an ANTZ lie/propaganda claim to work, one to make the claims, and another to believe it without question / hesitation. The critical thinking types (or third type) then become the loonies in the room who are best to simply ignore for now following the 'righteous path.'

The types of vendors that when one sales clerk misspoke creating the big
lie?
Yelp this is all over one clerk who misspoke...cough*cough*


The types of vendors who got ambushed by competitors who used the DA
controversy as a marketing tool?
A supposed competitor who actually carried and sold their product that decided to test them to ensure they met their standards after this vendor refused to provide test they had already conducted..ehem!! Course it quickly became clear why they didn't provide the test.


Seems legit to me.
So legit that they now have a lawsuit coming at them and rightfully so

Looking forward to dancing more with this type of position further on this forum. Wishing you the best of luck. I think you'll need it.

 

[skoony]

it's like if i said "the earth orbits the sun", and then someone said "i don't agree with that." well, to bad you don't agree, but you are wrong.

Your framing your argument the wrong way. The truth is one could say AD in e-juice is
potentially safe as opposed to saying its potentially harmful and be correct either way.

Regards
Mike

 

[DeAnna2112]

Any eliquid seller who makes false claims on the level 5P has deserves to be sitting under the scrutiny of the law...looks like 5P will be an example for the rest of the shady vendors. I couldn't be happier to see this lawsuit....5P earned it!!

 

[Jman8]

it's not just "my" theory, it's what Dr. Farsilinos thinks as well. you think his opinions are non-fact based? you think he is on the side of big tobacco/pharma so he is biased?
fact is, no other flavoring compounds have been found to have possible long term side effects that we know of. you can say "well look at this, and look at that. they are probably bad too" all you want. however, D/AP are the only ones that have ANY type of evidence of being unsafe.

so the best we can do (for now) is get rid of D/AP.

Google any of the 4 main ingredients in eLiquid along lines of "the danger of inhaling (ingredient)" and be honest on what that search finds. I believe it'll point to many instances of potential danger, if not propaganda existing for current risks (i.e. for nicotine).

As DA/P is not one of the 4 ingredients, but is part of eLiquid, then also need to realize at this point that eLiquid isn't, nor ever was as simple as 4 ingredients. If smokes are said to have thousands of chemicals, then astute vaper needs to realize their 4 ingredient product has dozens of chemicals at least, if not hundreds, maybe / possibly even thousands. So, then google any of those chemicals with the words above suggested for search.

Thus again, it comes down to calling out the bluff of the propaganda. Are there actually known, observable harms strictly correlated with that ingredient? AND can that be tied specifically to vaping usage? If it cannot, then vapers/vaping industry has a leg to stand on. A fairly solid leg. If only going with loose connections and "makes us look bad," then kindly show me this ingredient/chemical you found that has no risks associated with it. I will THEN believe that one does have a chance of never coming under scrutiny from opposition. I might not fully believe this, but it would help with case I think that you think you are making right now.

It's not like it will be DA/P today, and then tomorrow or as soon as next week it'll be 'any other ingredient, component' that is on trial. Opposition has, from their perspective, plenty of time to set up the bowling pins and knock them down. And if vapers are siding with them on the "can we knock that pin down together," then really who needs opposition to help decimate the industry? We can take care of that on our own.

 

[skoony]

Any eliquid seller who makes false claims on the level 5P has deserves to be sitting under the scrutiny of the law...looks like 5P will be an example for the rest of the shady vendors. I couldn't be happier to see this lawsuit....5P earned it!!

When 5P first became aware of the issue DA or DP were not on their ingredients list.
That was the source of most of the confusion. Once they sorted that out and figured
out what the issue was they then stated they were looking into it. They did look into
and as a result reformulated certain product lines. Along the way the did two sets
of tests. At the same time individuals and at least two vendors did their own testing.
None of the tests agreed with another. Its not surprising 5P used the most favorable
results. There initial testing showed trace or no amounts. It depends on the
test used. If I remember correctly every time 5p addressed this issue
publicly they were vilified as spouting more lies and deceit. You can't have it one
way. There are two sides to this. I am glad 5P will get there day in court.
If they can afford it.

Regards
Mike

 

[Jman8]

I am glad 5P will get there day in court.
If they can afford it.

Regards
Mike

My current opinion is that 5P ought not to stand on their own going forward. That this lawsuit deserves a CTA of some sort where vapers are engaging in some sort of action that would benefit 5P's case.

I've already elaborated on that point in previous posts. If any politically aware vaper is framing this as issue that is entirely up to 5P to defend, then I say be willing to welcome in the age of BV/BT into the legal market, as only companies that will be standing. They have funds to take on such cases and hold ground. And again, I am fairly certain that after all this shakes out, say 4 years from now, that the BV companies will have products with DA/P in them, and that consumers may not get full disclosure on that, even while FDA will have exact disclosure on those figures.

So, at some point the anti-DA crowd will have to accept that DA is allowed, by FDA, in product, that there is no full disclosure to consumers, and that the new open market for vaping products are you get to select from say 15 companies. 8 of which have DA/P in their eLiquids, and 7 which say they don't, but which ANTZ plaintiffs are saying that is a lie, and they look forward to taking them to court on it to establish that lie.

*I'm thinking 15 companies would be considered by others as a very generous number on my part. I don't think 4 years from now it'll be just 5 companies, but it could be.