This is One Trade Organization's guidelines on ppm Levels.
Electronic Cigarette Trade Association (ECTA) of Canada
Electronic Cigarette Trade Association (ECTA) of Canada
Diketone thread #411
- Thread starter Jman8
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
But those self regulations are an anathema to the capitalistic attitudes of the states. Adhering to those self regulations would interfere with free enterprise and most of all profit.
Sorry man , but i like to keep my word and my first post was my last .
I don't want to go in depth here, because my presence in these types of threads is becoming.. Well, nauseatingly ubiquitous, quite frankly, but I just want to throw another monkey in the wrench:
There seems to be some lumping in of "anti-diacetyl" and "anti-nicotine/tobacco" when I don't think it's really that black and white. I think vaping is great, I want to see it flourish and ideally with as few hitches in the regulatory road as possible, and so I think (inherent in that) is the need for us to self-regulate. Sure, there's the "If a vendor is selling diketone juice, that's up to you to not buy it" argument but I think the real responsible thing to do would be to say, "Well there's a questionable nature to this one component, so let's eliminate it until we have further knowledge." I think by acknowledging there may be this *one* flaw in vaping will further legitimize the industry.
I'm not about policing those around me, you do what you wanna do, but being callously brazen and saying, "For sure diketones are harmless," is contrary to all logic. Everyone is willing to side with Dr. F whenever he proves an article wrong, but most people seem to miss the underlying fact that Dr. F himself calls for the outright removal of diketones for e-liquid. He doesn't advocate the, "avoid it if you don't want it" method, because he probably is fully aware that if we don't do it, another organization will attempt to do it for us. It might not be fair, and it might not seem like an American thing to do, but it's pretty much bound to happen unless we can do something about it first.
I remember there was an issue not too long ago about some red food dye being carcinogenic, and some company (Mountain Dew or Cheetos or something) was using a lot of it in their products. They didn't remove it on their own volition, it was only after a year or two of deliberating in court that they were forced to remove it from their products. They chose to profiteer at the potential expense of their customers. And I say "potential" because, much like popcorn lung, "who knows if those people got cancer due to some external factor, or if it could be attributed to their consumption of the product in question."
And that's all I'll say. RED LEADER STANDING BY
There seems to be some lumping in of "anti-diacetyl" and "anti-nicotine/tobacco" when I don't think it's really that black and white. I think vaping is great, I want to see it flourish and ideally with as few hitches in the regulatory road as possible, and so I think (inherent in that) is the need for us to self-regulate. Sure, there's the "If a vendor is selling diketone juice, that's up to you to not buy it" argument but I think the real responsible thing to do would be to say, "Well there's a questionable nature to this one component, so let's eliminate it until we have further knowledge." I think by acknowledging there may be this *one* flaw in vaping will further legitimize the industry.
I'm not about policing those around me, you do what you wanna do, but being callously brazen and saying, "For sure diketones are harmless," is contrary to all logic. Everyone is willing to side with Dr. F whenever he proves an article wrong, but most people seem to miss the underlying fact that Dr. F himself calls for the outright removal of diketones for e-liquid. He doesn't advocate the, "avoid it if you don't want it" method, because he probably is fully aware that if we don't do it, another organization will attempt to do it for us. It might not be fair, and it might not seem like an American thing to do, but it's pretty much bound to happen unless we can do something about it first.
I remember there was an issue not too long ago about some red food dye being carcinogenic, and some company (Mountain Dew or Cheetos or something) was using a lot of it in their products. They didn't remove it on their own volition, it was only after a year or two of deliberating in court that they were forced to remove it from their products. They chose to profiteer at the potential expense of their customers. And I say "potential" because, much like popcorn lung, "who knows if those people got cancer due to some external factor, or if it could be attributed to their consumption of the product in question."
And that's all I'll say. RED LEADER STANDING BY
Not true.
Partially true.
Not accurate.
I heard he believes in the free market, minus the frivolous lawsuits.
And he'll win the debate. He's that good.
Or not. Especially considering all known cases showed symptoms within 18 months.
Or so you think you're not vaping diketones. Does your basic common sense tell you the substitutes are perfectly safe? Ya know, cause there could be potential issues with those 85 years from now. Better safe than sorry.
That's the question I meant to ask (above) about the substitute ingredients. Ya know, the perfectly safe ones.
Because the OP uses that scary thing called reason in his arguments.
Woohoo!
I heard PG, nic and even VG are scary. Vaping is just really scary. Life on this planet is scary. If you're scared, then chances are your common sense is pretty high. Its even scarier to think that there are people amongst us that aren't scared by our common fears that we've dreamed up, outside of science.
I think there are very few and arguably none that see diketones as harmless. Just like we don't really see people who think nic is harmless. Very little discussion would bear this out if one were to claim 'it's harmless!'
The disagreement comes from level of harm, how actual that is and/or how known that is to us, along with what (if anything) the industry ought to do in response to the potential harm.
Like for the anti-vaper (at one extreme), the diketone issue is sufficient recent to get rid of all flavors in all vapor products.
And for the pro-vaping enthusiasts, the diketone issue can be sufficiently dealt with via free market (minus frivolous lawsuits) as demonstrated by current market.
Then in between are various levels of concern, some giving into full blown fear mongering. Here is where 'common sense' gets discussed, and yet if that is met with rationale for all the other potential unknowns about vaping (which is true with all other ingredients), then it seems like there's either a whole bunch of backing off of the need to paint diketones as really scary or there's a doubling down of sorts that occurs whereby pro-vaper moves 5 steps closer to anti-vape rhetoric and decides, maybe vaping is about as bad as smoking. Who knows? How could we possibly know?
That's the argument that ANTZ are using for the entire whole of vaping.
I vote for disclosure, and informed choice.
I would lump the two together, but draw distinctions. ANTZ types have a whole lot of propaganda to work from that isn't entirely based on fear mongering. And since it's not entirely based on that, they can hit harder, plus have a good 50 years of attack strategy (that has worked to some degree) to know that they can hit hard. So, that would be a fairly clear distinction between the two. But both strike me as engaging in level of fear mongering which aims to take pro-vaping position down a few notches. I think some in the anti-diacetyl crowd do not do this intentionally. Though I think they deserve to have it shown how being anti-diketone can inadvertently be setting up that position for true anti-vaping people.
I take strong issue with the notion of "acknowledging there may be this one flaw in vaping." Not because I don't see it as a flaw. It's a double edged sword. It has a benefit, and it has a detriment. But it is CLEARLY not the only ingredient that is like this. Arguably all of the ingredients have the exact same flaw (being a double edge sword). In my understanding of reality, all substances have this flaw. I see literally no chance of this ingredient being removed and at any point in the near future (read as next 25 years) the industry being seen as legitimate. IMO, that would be so naive to go in that direction, I would think MSA would be very likely for vaping within 3 years of that, thus completely delegitimizing whatever everyone (once) thought was 'good' about vaping.
The thing with this thread and all the ones like it is that the anti-diketone, or even that diketone agnostic camp has very little to no basis for industry wide removal. Nothing really scientific to back that sort of assertion (ingredient removal industry wide). And so it takes the whole harmful debate tactics, which we've seen on so many issues with vaping since its inception, for it to have any chance (at all) of sounding reasonable.
Again, I fail to see how the diacetyl issue is different than the anti-freeze and formaldehyde issues that came before it, and haven't really left us. It is clearly right now more in the fear mongering side of things than in 'genuine concern.'
And it is for sure not going to be the last time we walk down this path with similar issue/ingredient that is currently (as in right now) available in vaping. So hypothetically, diketones could be removed tomorrow and while I think it would be incredibly naive, I could see how (naive) person could then think vaping is good to go, being relatively safe and not open to obvious attack. And yet, what I'm saying (did say in OP) is that an ingredient that exists right now in vape products will take us down this SAME PATH again in the future and it'll be very similar argument going on. One where those who note that concern are just being genuine in their concern, and are just asking that this one thing be addressed/removed, for vaping to be seen as legitimate. Or something along lines of, "because of this vaping will be seen as necessary for regulations. I blame all of regulations on this one issue." Or even, "if we would've just self regulated, we wouldn't have been in the position we are."
Glad I covered all of this in OP as proceeding on just seems like I'm rehashing what was already squarely addressed.
Well obviously the industry is not going to do it voluntarily, so mandatory and penalties for falsely stating contents.
Consumers have a right to know what is in what they consume.
I see it just the opposite; that the industry which has failed to remove these compounds, as well as those that have defended these compounds continuing to be used, have given the antis a big pile of ammunition to use in their propaganda war.
Really? Then please name another compound used in flavorings (that's not a diketone) that's been implicated in lung problems severe enough to require transplants.
Because those can easily be dismissed as junk science. This, not so much, no matter how hard some of you try, at least not while we still have vendors offering juices with 1000 ppm or more of these substances in 'em.
I have a hard time answering that question, so I will stay on the fence for now.
It depends on the science behind the danger, and what regulatory approach would be used.
At this time, obviously, I do not trust any government agency to regulate in a responsible manner.
So that is really the bottom line for me.
The rest is a troublesome matter in my mind.
This is a safer alternative without all those pesky diketones http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/n-butyric_acid.htm
Thanks for answering (for DC2?)
I think the free market would handle it. Perhaps not perfectly, but 99% sure mandatory disclosure will get (many) aspects of it wrong, as in confusing/inaccurate. And while that is happening, it'll just be more calls for heavier/fine tuned regulations or a market where only BV can (possibly) survive.
So, I'd say favoring mandatory disclosure (without a whole bunch of stipulations on what that means) is favoring FDA deeming.
I wonder if they'll have mandatory disclosure on the black market?
some people are alergic sometimes deathy to some ingredients. I support full content labelling.
I have problems with artificial sweetners for instance...
I have problems with artificial sweetners for instance...
Couldn't you say the same thing about nicotine? Like wouldn't you honestly acknowledge that if we removed nicotine from all products that antis would have less ammunition?
Cause IMO, you are greatly under estimating how our opposition works if you think this is the place where we ought to draw a line and appease opposition via mandatory removal/disclosure.
By "like this" I meant another ingredient that is considered to (allegedly) cause significant harm.
But I gotta admit I liked all the weasel wording you used to establish the alleged harm of diketones (in vaping).
Oh, on pretty much same basis, I find it easy to dismiss this issue as promulgated by junk science. The anti-freeze one is actually far less junk science than this one.
Yes, it's come to this, DC2. How can we trust the "science" coming from the CDC ......or anywhere for that matter...... on anything? The one BIG thing about vaping that has distressed me no end is finding out how adulterated and twisted the "science" has been from organizations, associations, governments and "people in charge with a bunch of degrees" supposedly "well respected". To find out they've been lying for many years about vaping, makes me very skeptical about anything they've espoused in years past and what they put forward in the future. 
The 5 Stages of VapingYes, it's come to this, DC2. How can we trust the "science" coming from the CDC ......or anywhere for that matter...... on anything? The one BIG thing about vaping that has distressed me no end is finding out how adulterated and twisted the "science" has been from organizations, associations, governments and "people in charge with a bunch of degrees" supposedly "well respected". To find out they've been lying for many years about vaping, makes me very skeptical about anything they've espoused in years past and what they put forward in the future.
And do you think that market will have mandatory disclosure?
Yeah, I already know your response.
But curious what those who have allergies will do in that market? Or what they have done pre-FDA deeming in current market?
Like I have allergy to pretty popular product that may or may not be in something I will choose to eat today. If it's in there a lot, it'll affect me (could arguably be deadly), and then I'll know not to eat that again. Or I guess I could sue the manufacturer for not proving exact amount on there and causing me to have adverse reaction. I dunno even know if that last sentence makes sense cause I don't understand how people reach that sort of conclusion, but probably makes it easier to conceive of when you see million dollar lawsuits awarded on similar grounds.
You do indirectly raise an interesting point. If it is true that BO is a rare condition (say .5% of population will get it if exposed to high amount of diketones, when inhaled), then I wonder what the 99.5% of the population that wouldn't get the condition are to do if say the substitute is actually worse for them?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
