Do you prefer tobacco flavored e-liquid or NET tobacco e-liquid?
- Thread starter HighlanderNorth
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Have you tried some of the W2V or other cigar flavors? I'm an El Toro fan myself but W2V is on my list of "must haves"
LOL! O.T. but I immediately thought about Bill Cosby who got in BIG BIG trouble with Mrs. Cosby when he determined that the kids could have chocolate cake for breakfast .. eggs...milk....flour... chocolate cake is good for you!!
It's similar to someone thinking, "well, I like ice cream, so therefore I like eggs." Eggs are in ice cream, right?I am going to bed, I am feeling silly now.
Chiming in a little late here, but in my opinion, NET's are the only way to go if you know what tobacco tastes like and that is what you want. Some vendors that use Tobacco Absolute can pull it off, others... not so much. I don't really understand the "lab-made" tobaccos. I've had a few from Halo and GoodeJuice (not to be confused with their extracted line), and, well, Halo's Captain Jack and Bella Valiente are mildly tobaccoesqe, but the others only taste floral and perfumey to me. These are not adjectives that I generally use to describe tobacco. It's not a bad taste necessarily, but it's not even remotely close to tobacco according to my taste buds and olfactory lobe. I've been a little perplexed by this, because of all the reviews I've read on Halo tobaccos, people either think it tastes exactly like tobacco or nothing like it. I'm wondering if there's something in there that doesn't trigger everyone's tobacco sensors (like cilantro -- according to some it tastes like dish soap, to others like me it's absolutely delicious).
Most non-extracted tobaccos taste more like some bizarre iteration of leather or sandalwood to me than tobacco, and I'm surprised that this passes snuff given that most all of us have extensive experience with actual tobacco -- cigarette, pipe, cigar, or other. How quickly we forget. I find some some non-extracts very enjoyable (ePipemods and Alien Visions come to mind) if I don't try to tell myself that it's a tobacco. And to be fair, not all NET's taste all that much like tobacco either. If honest-to-God tobacco is what I want, I'll shop at Want2Vape, GoodeJuice (House Brewed E-Liquid line), or Ahlusion.
Most non-extracted tobaccos taste more like some bizarre iteration of leather or sandalwood to me than tobacco, and I'm surprised that this passes snuff given that most all of us have extensive experience with actual tobacco -- cigarette, pipe, cigar, or other. How quickly we forget. I find some some non-extracts very enjoyable (ePipemods and Alien Visions come to mind) if I don't try to tell myself that it's a tobacco. And to be fair, not all NET's taste all that much like tobacco either. If honest-to-God tobacco is what I want, I'll shop at Want2Vape, GoodeJuice (House Brewed E-Liquid line), or Ahlusion.
I have a problem with people using the term NET, my concerns are on behalf of the vaping community. We’re not out of the woods regarding issues with the FDA, State laws and various enemies. We therefore can’t afford misleading, incorrect terminology. Natural means “Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind”. Even a substance that exists in nature, such as a tobacco leaf, or even the glycerin inherent in vegetables, once part of that is extracted and concentrated it is no longer “natural” and cannot claim to be. We cannot provide ammunition to vaping’s enemies to allow them yopoint out that we’re making false claims about our products being natural.
Furthermore, when you extract tobacco “Flavor” it should be noted that’s what it is. Even if trace amounts of other ingredients are present it should be noted that it’s a flavor. Plus, all the juices have the addition of PG, VG, usually nicotine and occasionally other flavorings.
I think it would be far better, more accurate and safer to call them Extracted Tobacco Flavoring or ETF.
Furthermore, when you extract tobacco “Flavor” it should be noted that’s what it is. Even if trace amounts of other ingredients are present it should be noted that it’s a flavor. Plus, all the juices have the addition of PG, VG, usually nicotine and occasionally other flavorings.
I think it would be far better, more accurate and safer to call them Extracted Tobacco Flavoring or ETF.
I can understand your requirement for information but aren't being a tad unrealistic? If "transparency" is a total requirement for consumption does that mean you'd never drink Coca Cola or eat a Big Mac on account of secret formulas and sauces? I have no problem with suppliers holding back their trade secrets, that's their business and doesn't neccesarily imply their product is worse or better.
Actually, you just about nailed how I approach food. When it comes to food, I DIY!
p.s. Coca-Cola? Big Mac?! What are those things?
I see your point, but I suspect you might be placing the wrong emphasis on the adjective. This is a semantic issue, but when you group <Natural Tobacco> together and add "Extract," "Natural" modifies "Tobacco," acknowledging that the extract is made from natural tobacco. So why don't we call it "NTE?" Personally I think it would be a little less misleading, but someone came up with "NET" (Naturally (or Natural) Extracted Tobacco) probably to make the term a little more catchy. Ultimately I have no major issue with "NET" and do not see it as a threat to vapedom because in today's parlance "Natural," in its adjectival usage, does not only mean “Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind,” but can also mean "faithfully representing nature," or "derived from nature" (among other definitions), which is accurate and also emphasized by the inclusion of the term "Extract," which in itself implies human (or "unnatural") modification.
If we called it "Extracted Tobacco Flavoring," we might run into the same issue of misinterpretation since it uses two stacked adjectives, and one of which -- tobacco -- can also serve as a complete noun as "tobacco flavoring." Is it "ETF" meaning "flavoring extracted from tobacco," or is it "tobacco flavoring that has been extracted (from some source not determined by the phrase)." Without more clarity, any tobacco-flavored liquid could be considered "ETF."
Ceegary, anything that bears the name "tobacco" (or actually just "nicotine"), is going to cause scrutiny in some shape or form.
Dayum, somebody is inspired tonight! Tez, post 'til your fingers bleed, or until your keyboard stops working.
Last edited:
Umm, no, extracted means extracted and your definitions of natural don't appear in any dictionaries I could find.
"The term natural flavor or natural flavoring means the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional. Natural flavors include the natural essence or extractives obtained from plants..."
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
Honestly, if you feel there is a fire blazin' then don't purchase NETs or use the term. I, for one, will and will. If the feds come a knockin', I will fend them off with a sling shot and nicorette gum projectiles.
p.s. The FDA does not have a definition that it uses to govern and or regulate the term "natural." That's why you are able to have all types of food-like products, such as 7up, that claims to be "natural". The issue (in this situation) is not in what something is being called, but what that something is.
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
Honestly, if you feel there is a fire blazin' then don't purchase NETs or use the term. I, for one, will and will. If the feds come a knockin', I will fend them off with a sling shot and nicorette gum projectiles.
p.s. The FDA does not have a definition that it uses to govern and or regulate the term "natural." That's why you are able to have all types of food-like products, such as 7up, that claims to be "natural". The issue (in this situation) is not in what something is being called, but what that something is.
Last edited:
I'm more comfortable with adding "flavor" or "flavoring". No, they're not going to come for you, they'll come for all of us. I do vape extracts as well as other bacco and WTA which is a different thing entirely, because that has nothing to do with flavor and is a different extraction process. I do care to continue doing that and care about vaping rights in general, hence my posting.
Last edited:
Okay, but I am curious, how would you distinguish lab or artifical flavors from the other unnamed alternative? I am sure most people want to know if they are vaping a "flavor" that was derived from tobacco!
That sounds so apocalyptic! You can believe that if you want, but I don't think if they "come for us" it will be because we use an acronym or a word. You are entitled to your concerns, and I am entitled to not have your concerns.
Me! That's me!
But I'm fine with flavoring derived from anything as long as it's been tested to be free from known carcinogens and toxins. I care more about that information that what adjectives or acronyms are used to describe a flavoring.
I believe that the FDA would come down much harder, like a ton of bricks, on the contents of a flavoring and it's safety than what it's called.
Actually I don't care how a flavor is derived, I have no problem with either and carcinogens are not an issue imo. It just comes down to whether I like to vape it. If you think words don't count I suggest you look at many major court cases which hinged on a single word in a document. Surely contents will be more important but that doesn't mean they won't pick at whatever they can. They have a mighty grudge having lost a case and appeals at a high level, or maybe you don't know about that. Saying it doesn't concern may mean you're actually gauging it as not an issue, it may also mean you don't really care.
For all the talk about what words are being used, I think there isn't enough attention being paid to the fact that the FDA is actually looking for hard evidence proving that ecigarettes could be harmful. That isn't speculation. It's already started.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf
TSNAs are tobacco carcinogens. Tobacco has been estimated to have caused 25%-40% of all cancers in the US. That is what the FDA is looking for, evidence of harm, like TSNAs in ecigarettes. They're going to keep looking.
If you can find FDA documentation regarding concerns over the wording of ecigarette products, I'd be interested, but I think that proven safety or harm of ecigarette ingredients is the greater issue when it comes to keeping ecigarettes unregulated by the FDA.
If someone decides to personally sue an ecigarette maker, a descriptive word would be important in court. I agree with you there, but with the FDA, I believe the concern is over whether or not they can make a convincing argument that the industry requires regulating, and hard scientific evidence is how they'll make that argument.
One of my fears is that general lack of concern over carcinogens in ejuice by the vaping community will be what causes regulation, because that is a real public health issue, not whether or not the word "natural" is used to describe ejuice flavors.
Last edited:
Imogene, I don't have the links at hand, but the FDA did try to get e-cigs banned. They held up some shipments from China. They were then sued by a consortium of suppliers and organizations who work on behalf of vaping. FDA lost the case and so it was appealed. It went to the 1st circuit in DC. The panel of three judges threw it out recommended to the FDA they accept e-cigs and classify them as a tobacco product. Right before their period expired to appeal to the Supreme Court they announced they would be classifying them as a tobacco product.
BTW, tsna content in e-juice is at very low trace levels and there was a recent study in Greece which compared e-cigs and cigarette effects on the heart and came our very favorably for us.
There's no question that things are going to change, but they're not the only issue we'll have besides being taxed and regulated. This will make our juice more costly and will probably drive some of our suppliers out of business. Making claims about what e-cigs are and can do is something we're all being cautioned about and most producers follow these guidelines. My point is we shouldn't be opening any more points of attack than we already have.
Bear in mind that e-cigs impacts the profits of the drug companies. There are groups trying to shut us down saying we entice children with sweet flavors. Plus the tobacco companies have already entered the arena and who knows what strategies that may involve besides the obvious of protecting their copyrighted names, (already happening).
All this info is available on this board and elsewhere. If you care you might also check into the activities of CASAA which works on e-cigs behalf and do a great job.
BTW, tsna content in e-juice is at very low trace levels and there was a recent study in Greece which compared e-cigs and cigarette effects on the heart and came our very favorably for us.
There's no question that things are going to change, but they're not the only issue we'll have besides being taxed and regulated. This will make our juice more costly and will probably drive some of our suppliers out of business. Making claims about what e-cigs are and can do is something we're all being cautioned about and most producers follow these guidelines. My point is we shouldn't be opening any more points of attack than we already have.
Bear in mind that e-cigs impacts the profits of the drug companies. There are groups trying to shut us down saying we entice children with sweet flavors. Plus the tobacco companies have already entered the arena and who knows what strategies that may involve besides the obvious of protecting their copyrighted names, (already happening).
All this info is available on this board and elsewhere. If you care you might also check into the activities of CASAA which works on e-cigs behalf and do a great job.
Based upon E-Cigarette Regulation Still Pursued By the FDA from Health Law Perspectives (October 2010), you may have a point regarding the wording issue, however, the issue appears to be wording regarding health claims that the FDA considers unproven.
"The FDA recently took enforcement action against five distributors of e-cigarettes “for
practices which violate various provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FCDA),” including “violations of good manufacturing practices, making unsubstantiated
drug claims, and using the devices as delivery mechanisms for active pharmaceutical
ingredients like rimonabant and tadalafil.”24 According to the FDA, the e-cigarette
distributors may not, among other things, “claim that its drug can treat or mitigate a
disease, such as nicotine addiction, unless the drug’s safety and effectiveness have been
proven. Yet all five companies claim without FDA review of relevant evidence that the
products help users quit smoking cigarettes.” "
I was already aware that the FDA frowned upon health claims by ecigarette makers. A company may include ingredients that are generally believed to be healthy, but an ecigarette maker cannot claim that vaping them will be healthy. That is a semantic line, but not one that is difficult to walk.
From the FDA website:
Q: What concerns does FDA have regarding electronic cigarettes?
A: FDA has not evaluated any e-cigarettes for safety or effectiveness. When FDA conducted limited laboratory studies of certain samples, FDA found significant quality issues that indicate that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are substandard or non-existent. FDA found that cartridges labeled as containing no nicotine contained nicotine and that three different electronic cigarette cartridges with the same label emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff. Experts have also raised concerns that the marketing of products such as e-cigarettes can increase nicotine addiction among young people and may lead kids to try other tobacco products. Visit FDA’s Electronic Cigarettes webpage for additional information.
"The FDA recently took enforcement action against five distributors of e-cigarettes “for
practices which violate various provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FCDA),” including “violations of good manufacturing practices, making unsubstantiated
drug claims, and using the devices as delivery mechanisms for active pharmaceutical
ingredients like rimonabant and tadalafil.”24 According to the FDA, the e-cigarette
distributors may not, among other things, “claim that its drug can treat or mitigate a
disease, such as nicotine addiction, unless the drug’s safety and effectiveness have been
proven. Yet all five companies claim without FDA review of relevant evidence that the
products help users quit smoking cigarettes.” "
I was already aware that the FDA frowned upon health claims by ecigarette makers. A company may include ingredients that are generally believed to be healthy, but an ecigarette maker cannot claim that vaping them will be healthy. That is a semantic line, but not one that is difficult to walk.
From the FDA website:
Q: What concerns does FDA have regarding electronic cigarettes?
A: FDA has not evaluated any e-cigarettes for safety or effectiveness. When FDA conducted limited laboratory studies of certain samples, FDA found significant quality issues that indicate that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are substandard or non-existent. FDA found that cartridges labeled as containing no nicotine contained nicotine and that three different electronic cigarette cartridges with the same label emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff. Experts have also raised concerns that the marketing of products such as e-cigarettes can increase nicotine addiction among young people and may lead kids to try other tobacco products. Visit FDA’s Electronic Cigarettes webpage for additional information.
I must have been writing while you posted!
I've been around for a while (check the join date!)
I agree with you about the potential hazards of FDA regulation.
I was merely stating that I believe that evidence regarding ejuice ingredients was of greater concern to the FDA than whether or the word "natural" is used, and that more evidence of carcinogens present in ecigarettes might give the FDA a foot in the door that we in the vaping community don't want them to have, if they approach this issue from a different angle than they did in 2010 with that kind of evidence in hand. We may have to agree to disagree on that point. I think all that is really relevant has been said, unless we start repeating ourselves trying to convince each other.
My own personal concern regards ecigarette safety, and I would be satisfied by better labeling myself.
Last edited:
- Status
