Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study

[Jman8]

Let me clarify something. The issue here is not if diacetyl is present in e-liquids at levels 5 times or 50 times lower than cigarettes. Even 5 times lower would be enough in any other case. However, the issue of diacetyl is about an AVOIDABLE RISK. This is the key point. When we are talking about an avoidable risk, we should not accept any levels to be present. That is my opinion, and this is what i support in the paper.

And that opinion strikes me as costly or one where I'd like to see a discussion regarding costs. For the 30% or so that are diacetyl free, I'm assuming little to no costs, but for the 70% currently being detected, it would seem like it could be significant cost, or simply easier to exit a market where consumers are demanding diacetyl-free product.

I get what "avoidable risk" means, but feel this is missing a whole lot of other perspective that most certainly deals with the issue of "vaping safety."

 

[Jman8]

First of all, why is it a problem that vendors should test their products? I have not seen a single industry not testing their products, why should the e-cigarette industry be the first one? Don't you think that some of the billion-dollars of this industry should go to testing?


Secondly, who said that vendors should do the testing? DA and AP are coming from flavors. Thus, the flavor-supplier should provide evidence that the flavors are DA and AP free. Of course, if they don't then it is the duty of the e-cigarette vendor to do the testing because they are providing the end-product to the user and they are responsible for it.

Let's deal with the "secondly" part, as you answered your own question with the "of course" part. Then, let's take into account that many vendors have been advertising "diacetyl-free" and yet, your study shows that is not the case with around 70% of sampled products.

So, if dealing with science as I understand it, then consumers ought to test (triple-check) to gain additional certainty, or can never ever accurately claim to know for sure that their vendor's products are diacetyl-free, just because vendor said so. Going strictly on credibility of vendor is, IMO, reasonable, but closer to faith than to science.

I think industry of this size would be wise to test products for safety. Wish to make that abundantly clear.

But "safety" likely needs perspective, otherwise, at some point it does get absurd (IMO). Also in my opinion, this diacetyl issue is example of the absurdity being called forth. Where less than maximum limit for safety isn't good enough and implication that (all) vendors must go diacetyl-free or be considered distributing 'unsafe product' when reality is some may already be in range of 'safe limit.'

Of course, testing, consultation with experts, research etc cost money. E-cigarette devices and liquids cost money to consumers and provide profits to the vendors. Some of them should be invested on research and testing. It happens everywhere...

And IMO is the exact, precise reason why smaller vendors/manufacturers will be squeezed from the market. The companies bringing in the lion share of the billion dollar industry likely welcome rigorous testing and not worried about costs for that. Vendor that has lots of loyal customers, and little means to afford expensive testing, but is more or less required to take that additional cost on, may instead choose to exit while there is profit to be had.

Here on this thread, we might learn that testing for diacetyl is not all that expensive and think any vendor (or even DIY'er) ought to be able to cover that cost. But, I think we all know this is not the only test to be had when it comes to determining safety of product. FDA estimates that at $335,000 per product. I think that is way way way over estimated, but admittedly don't know for sure. Yet, if we deal with that number as it is only one currently in the discussion, then I am curious who (you, or any person on this thread) feels will be able to afford that? I think all tobacco companies in vaping market will be able to. I think the big vapor companies may stand decent chance. Everyone else? I say no.

 

[Mr.Mann]

Studies performed for the purpose of examining the end-effect of exposure (like the cytotoxicity study) are completely different from a study evaluating a component present in the e-liquid. In the cytotoxicity study the sample names were mentioned not in order to target anyone but only for the case someone wants to validate the results and the protocol we followed. By just mentioning e-liquids anonymously, none could do that because with every sample the results are different. Moreover, we associated the results with the method of flavor production rather than with the specific vendor.
For the cinammon study the names were mentioned but that does not matter much because cinnamon is a common flavor, and everyone uses cinnamaldehyde for this flavor. When we will publish a study comparing NETs with food-approved (or tobacco absolute) tobacco flavors we will also mention the names of the samples we tested.

In the diacetyl study, if we mention the names we will be targeting a small group of vendors which were chosen by us while there are thousands more with unknown results. It is of vital importance that every manufacturer addresses this issue through PROPER TESTING. If we mentioned the names, then we would have done what most vendors want. Because we tested 36 out of thousands of vendors currently in the market.

Thanks for responding to my question.

 

[Racehorse]

Anything that reduces pleasure will reduce the second part of the equation or, as Clive says: "What's the point in a perfectly safe but bland product which no-one wants to use?"

Which is exactly what the cigarette manufacturers said, which led them to knowingly add 3,000+ chemicals to cigarettes.

Which is exactly what the food manufacturers said, thus they knowingly add chemicals, high salt, nitrates, "disguised sugar", etc. that is actually making people ill, diabetic, obese, etc.


A familiar saga in multi billion dollar industries w/familiar reasons (costs, tastes better, blah blah blah).

 

[WillyZee]

if we are aiming for as safe as possible ... then, all flavours will have to be axed.

 

[vangrl27]

The Clearstream studies had nothing to do with diacetyl and acetyl propionyl.

Sorry, let me rephrase this, being that you've worked closely with FlavouArt in the past, and you're a huge proponent of e-juice being free of acetyl and diacetyl, are you confident, with the knowledge you have about FlavourArt, that their claims of being free of these 2 ingredients are accurate in their 'electronic cigarette' line of flavours (I realize their Kitchen line may have diacetyl) ?

thank you

 

[Kent C]

Synthetically produced natural flavor means that you are making in the laboratory the same chemical that is providing the flavor to the natural product. E.g. vanillin is the natural chemical which gives the characteristic flavor to vanilla. You can make vanillin synthetically. It will be the exact same chemical, but made synthetically.

Something certain 'natural/organic' advocates don't understand....

 

[Racehorse]

Something certain 'natural/organic' advocates don't understand....

Correct. Many of the organic flavorings have naturally-occuring "bad stuff" that, if it were sythetically made in a lab, could be removed in the lab process.

When I started looking further into organic foods, I had to vet the growers because many of the "organic" hericides and pesticides were more deadly than the synthetic ones.

This is just another instance of "advertising copy" being used to sell stuff.

 

[Kent C]

Consumers who think that diacetyl is a problem should either DIY and do their own testing of ingredients ... or...
Buy from vendors who proclaim diacetyl free eliquids and provide testing results at their website or upon request.

Consumer who don't have a problem with diacetyl can DIY or buy from any vendor they like.

Consumers who don't know what diacetyl is or it's possible effects should get more informed. But if they don't, it's not the vendors or the flavor suppliers responsibility.

Vendors who want to be able to proclaim 'diacetyl-free' eliquids should have testing results available (from either their own testing or their flavor supplier's) on their sites or via email, mail, etc. for customers who want that information.

Vendors who don't want to claim diacetyl-free eliquids shouldn't mention it. But if they do and it isn't, they should be brought up on fraud charges. Same for flavor suppliers.

Flavor suppliers who specifically sell to eliquid wholesalers or vendors who want diacetyl-free eliquids could test for it, as a service and charge vendors for it, or let the vendors do the testing themselves.

Flavor suppliers who make flavors mainly for cooking should have no obligation to those who may use their flavors in eliquids - vendors or consumers.

If enough consumers demand diacetyl-free eliquid, those vendors who sell and don't test their eliquids will lose business or 'exit' the market

If not enough consumers demand diacetyl-free eliquid, then those who do, will pay a premium (the added cost of testing), either through DIY or certain vendors who test and sell those eliquids.

No gov't agency should mandate or prohibit any of the above. (except the fraud).

 

[aubergine]

(ed. - posted simultaneously with Kent, and not as succinctly. I often disagree with you, Kent, but yeah. And there are the courts, I use "law" too narrowly here. )
Just some thoughts.

1. I'm not persuaded that d & a-free e-liquid is bland or distasteful. The vendor that I use is quite popular; I may be mistaken but I'd think that he's running a pretty booming business. He says that he lab-tests his large line of products for those substances, which he discusses soberly and at length on his site. Either he's a dreadful liar/hopelessly incompetent or he's telling the truth.

If the latter is true, then it's simply not true that d&a liquids are unpalatable or that independent testing is unmanageably burdensome for small businesses. (That should not be equated with the deliberately burdensome testing proposed by the FDA - it's apparently a bit difficult to keep these issues distinct).

Of course, though I hate to think so, the former could be true. It'd be helpful, and surely good for business, for truly conscientious vendors to offer to supply copies of lab certs to interested consumers. Which leads to:

2. As I see it, at bottom line, there's no way for this to be actually regulated except by federal law, and that involves all sorts of odious variables that not very many of us want to accidentally support. We seem to be talking as if without that we can somehow require vendors to be transparent, honest and concerned about health issues enough to embrace the inconvenience and expense of testing without that involving regulatory oversight. A lot of this conversation is about whether or not we should do that, and why or why not, but without force of law (see, FDA), which we don't want, we simply can't.

What we CAN do is what informed consumers do all the time. We can disseminate whatever information we think important (and we won't agree on that), and those of us who want to be reassured that our e-liquids be d&a free can press vendors to test, and to provide consumers with lab-certified results of that testing. We can be insistent, informed consumers.

If there's not enough of a market for them, then 'a&d clean' e-liquids will be a niche product or disappear, as there's no incentive for vendors to comply with the wishes of a very few. (Given the number of vendors that brag that their liquids are "organic", "natural", "kosher", etc.,and create some competitive market with those meaningless health claims, perhaps headlining another [and actually valid] health-related product improvement will catch on. That's worked extremely well in the food market.)

God I'm parenthetical. Sigh.

I hate to say it, but I think that anyone who wants d&a removed from all e-liquid, as an avoidable risk, which is to my mind a respectable position, has to come to terms with the means by which that can actually be accomplished. It's actually dishonest to say, "I don't want FDA regulation of ecigs" and "I want vendors to be required to remove this dangerous ingredient from their products." The only regulatory body in town is the FDA.

Pick your poison. Sometimes the world sucks.

 

[aubergine]

You know what I bet? I bet that the "cleanest" juice is gonna be Chinese. I hate that stuff, tastes artificial, like chemicals.

That cracks me up.

A little punchy, ya think?

 

[Mr.Mann]

You know what I bet? I bet that the "cleanest" juice is gonna be Chinese. I hate that stuff, tastes artificial, like chemicals.

That cracks me up.

A little punchy, ya think?

Luckily I could get by on my EcoPure Rich! I wonder if Dr.F tested any blatantly Chinese juice (distinguished from repackaged Chinese juice).

 

[aubergine]

Luckily I could get by on my EcoPure Rich! I wonder if Dr.F tested in blatantly Chinese juice (distinguished from repackaged Chinese juice).

They have big factory labs. They've had shipments held up, cargo seized, cartos tested and indicted by the FDA for diacetyl (in minute quantity). They sell massive volume. They have incentive.

I want a hot dog and some of those french fries marinated in trans-fats and a double shot. I eat plant-based non-processed everything, I've got kale stuck in my teeth, but this stuff gets to you after a while. We weren't smokers because we're consistently health conscious.

 

[Kent C]

I hate to say it, but I think that anyone who wants d&a removed from all e-liquid, as an avoidable risk, which is to my mind a respectable position, has to come to terms with the means by which that can actually be accomplished. It's actually dishonest to say, "I don't want FDA regulation of ecigs" and "I want vendors to be required to remove this dangerous ingredient from their products." The only regulatory body in town is the FDA.

My 'like' is for this part, mainly, but you make other good points. (and I like the parenthetical This point is one I've made in a specific manner wrt those who don't want the proposed deeming on ecigs but would do the same for almost all other products. The hypocrisy and inconsistency is self-evident, as is their self-interest - of which I have no problem, but given their other views, they should.

 

[Jman8]

Just want to ask this again, and not directed at Dr. F. (though he's free to respond), would this issue greatly impact the 'gourmet' type of vendors, or perhaps most expensive juices currently available? I am asking if more so than others, but realize it likely runs the gamut.

 

[Kent C]

They have big factory labs. They've had shipments held up, cargo seized, cartos tested and indicted by the FDA for diacetyl (in minute quantity). They sell massive volume. They have incentive.

I want a hot dog and some of those french fries marinated in trans-fats and a double shot. I eat plant-based non-processed everything, I've got kale stuck in my teeth, but this stuff gets to you after a while. We weren't smokers because we're consistently health conscious.

While I won't compare Dr. F to the guy that created the false trans fat claims which set the diet in the US for decades on false or sloppy studies...

The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease - WSJ

... we have been fooled many times by what was considered to be a consensus in "scientific studies" - eggs don't cause cholesterol, butter is actually better than margarine.... I could list a few others but you get the idea. So far there hasn't been any contrary scientific studies that I have found against what has been stated about diacetyl, but that was also true of the studies above ..... for decades. That those studies were found faulty is not a good reason to dismiss the current studies, only to look at them without total certainty.

 

[aubergine]

... This point is one I've made in a specific manner wrt those who don't want the proposed deeming on ecigs but would do the same for almost all other products. The hypocrisy and inconsistency is self-evident, as is their self-interest - of which I have no problem, but given their other views, they should.

You know exactly what you're doing there, Kent, and I'm NOT going to rise to the bait, though I surely would like to argue that one, and at great, insufferable length.
Gawd, give 'em an inch, they take a mile.

 

[Kent C]

You know exactly what you're doing there, Kent, and I'm NOT going to rise to the bait, though I surely would like to argue that one, and at great, insufferable length.
Gawd, give 'em an inch, they take a mile.

You said almost the same idea as I did, when you said "I hate to say it, but I think that anyone who wants d&a removed from all e-liquid,....has to come to terms with the means by which that can actually be accomplished." The only difference being that you 'hate to say it' and I don't. I don't hate the truth, and what you said was true.

 

[Mr.Mann]

You said almost the same idea as I did, when you said "I hate to say it, but I think that anyone who wants d&a removed from all e-liquid,....has to come to terms with the means by which that can actually be accomplished." The only difference being that you 'hate to say it' and I don't. I don't hate the truth, and what you said was true.

In that instance and for those people, yes, it would be "the truth." But not all vapers (and not certain if many) that want the option in the matter are saying vendors/suppliers should be "required" -- i.e., by law (FDA) -- to make diacetyl-free liquid, just that the businesses shouldn't, ethically speaking, make factual statements with no proof (let alone with evidence to the contrary). I can't speak for all that wanted a choice, but for the most part I think many of us adhere to these points you made, Kent:

Vendors who want to be able to proclaim 'diacetyl-free' eliquids should have testing results available (from either their own testing or their flavor supplier's) on their sites or via email, mail, etc. for customers who want that information.

Vendors who don't want to claim diacetyl-free eliquids shouldn't mention it. But if they do and it isn't, they should be brought up on fraud charges. Same for flavor suppliers.

Flavor suppliers who specifically sell to eliquid wholesalers or vendors who want diacetyl-free eliquids could test for it, as a service and charge vendors for it, or let the vendors do the testing themselves. Kent C

Too many vendors jumped on the claim as a way to appear to be one of the "safe(r)," better choices -- now, it's just something that virtually every vendor will put on their site as they are not willing or able to distinguish the differences between a) what they put in their final mixes vs. what is already in a flavoring b) whether their supplier has up-to-date testing on the flavor-line or c) the diketone family in general (not just diacetyl itself, in name, as the bogeyman).

My thinking is that if I had known from jump street that it was as omnipresent as it appears to be, I may have formulated a different position (either with what I vape or how I feel about diacetyl in general). BUT DAMN! 74% of sweet flavors in general? Really?! Trying to avoid 74% of sweet flavors in the marketplace (if one doesn't want to vape any amount of diacetyl) is like trying to vape and not exhale vapor. Not impossible, but in my estimation, pointless to try.

 

[aubergine]

You said almost the same idea as I did, when you said "I hate to say it, but I think that anyone who wants d&a removed from all e-liquid,....has to come to terms with the means by which that can actually be accomplished." The only difference being that you 'hate to say it' and I don't. I don't hate the truth, and what you said was true.

To imply from those words that I hate to say the truth in the sense that we both know you mean is over the top.

What I hate is the truth of this particular situation, wherein a proposed regulation is deeply corrupted by cynical interest that doesn't serve anyone's health. I don't extend that to all government oversight or object to government regulation per se and I could easily name numerous regulations that I support, many of which do not serve my particular, "personal interest" and which do in fact protect the public from unscrupulous profiteers. I'd not dismantle the FDA, for all of it's imperfection. Instead, I'd fight to expose and eliminate the corrosion and corruption stemming from its collusion with big business, put a check on ultra-aggressive regulation strategies and require regulations to be congruent with high level, independently conducted scientific findings. Science should serve no ideological agenda, nor should regulatory bodies, neither yours nor mine. To me, this is a public health issue; to some, opposing ecig regulation is an issue in which agreement must logically entail agreement with an entire political viewpoint. To respond to that at any length, in this thread and much more provokingly in others, would take the discussion off topic, so I don't.