Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study

[Jman8]

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.

For me, in this thread, it is witnessing how science becomes a big business with an agenda, and needs no party affiliation for that to occur. Scientists alone, of any stripe (or rank) can't do this, and need a willing public to essentially take their understandings as gospel, for it to happen.

Reaching for zero diacetyl as the only reasonable goal and deeming that the avoidable risk, is IMO, seeking ultra-aggressive regulation strategy. Add a few humans in that have own 'public health agenda' (i.e. BT is bad bad bad) and voila conditions are ripe for this to become a big business, as there are thousands of products that would be wise to pay the piper, or be treated by highly aware consumer base, as "one of the bad ones." When just prior to the scientific data, in another thread, the same people were bragging about that vendor as having best product around.

And as I understand science/philosophy of science, I do enjoy pointing out that unless consumers are doing own testing, then really is no way to be sure your vendor's claims are accurate. Yet, pretty sure people will still treat it as gospel and behave in the market accordingly. Preaching and all.

 

[eethr]

On the point of "zero" amounts of the subject chemicals, I'd like to inject the following thought---

This stuff is contained in real butter. So every time someone fries an egg, they are inhaling some amount of it.

Professional breakfast cooks are inhaling an even greater amount. The artificially flavored butter-like frying oil that many of them use, has even more of it, for that intense butter flavor. And they breath some amount of that all morning. Given that the required exhaust fans do carry lots of it away, with much of it getting caught in the filters (and the neighbors breathing whatever doesn't, and happens to pass their way).

I don't think there have been any studies of breakfast cooks, regarding their lung conditions.

But practically everyone has inhaled at least some of it, throughout their lives.

 

[Mr.Mann]

On the point of "zero" amounts of the subject chemicals, I'd like to inject the following thought---

This stuff is contained in real butter. So every time someone fries an egg, they are inhaling some amount of it.

Professional breakfast cooks are inhaling an even greater amount. The artificially flavored butter-like frying oil that many of them use, has even more of it, for that intense butter flavor. And they breath some amount of that all morning. Given that the required exhaust fans do carry lots of it away, with much of it getting caught in the filters (and the neighbors breathing whatever doesn't, and happens to pass their way).

I don't think there have been any studies of breakfast cooks, regarding their lung conditions.

But practically everyone has inhaled at least some of it, throughout their lives.

You make great points, however, while I understand your points and am not, myself, on the zero-amount team, I breathe in a lot of stuff just sitting in traffic -- that doesn't mean I want sizable doses of that in my liquid, even if it does make my liquid taste better. The differences are akin to second-hand (just breathing it in) vs. first-hand (directly taking it in as if it were the air we breathe). I am sure most vapers don't just breathe in their vapor as if it's incense.

 

[Kent C]

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.

I understand all of that. My post on consumers, vendor and flavor suppliers is my best shot at how I think it should be handled. I think fraud should be handled by those committing it rather than have regulations that punish the innocent. And that's part of the problem. There are those who think no vendor is innocent. That's a political or philosophical problem. And when that is a majority view, all solutions are political - which is what they want. I'd rather find the individuals who are defrauding and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. It is what justice means. I don't even support the idea that it should be done to 'send a message' to others, but it does send a message to others as a secondary effect, but it shouldn't be a primary effect. Justice is primary.

What I don't advocate is either my personal concerns or the people that have their personal concerns being made into a generalization that ALL people should be AS concerned as they are. IOW, those that are concerned should handle it personally one way or another and be willing to pay the cost of their concerns rather than socializing those concerns for others who don't have them. And those who aren't concerned or 'understand the concern' but have a different view, can do something else.

 

[KFarsalinos]

For me, in this thread, it is witnessing how science becomes a big business with an agenda, and needs no party affiliation for that to occur. Scientists alone, of any stripe (or rank) can't do this, and need a willing public to essentially take their understandings as gospel, for it to happen.

Reaching for zero diacetyl as the only reasonable goal and deeming that the avoidable risk, is IMO, seeking ultra-aggressive regulation strategy. Add a few humans in that have own 'public health agenda' (i.e. BT is bad bad bad) and voila conditions are ripe for this to become a big business, as there are thousands of products that would be wise to pay the piper, or be treated by highly aware consumer base, as "one of the bad ones." When just prior to the scientific data, in another thread, the same people were bragging about that vendor as having best product around.

And as I understand science/philosophy of science, I do enjoy pointing out that unless consumers are doing own testing, then really is no way to be sure your vendor's claims are accurate. Yet, pretty sure people will still treat it as gospel and behave in the market accordingly. Preaching and all.

It is interesting to see that science is being accused for trying to do business through testing, while the e-cigarette industry IS ALREADY doing business (and gets huge profits). What is the problem in doing something that will make e-cigarettes better? At least, let the consumers make informed choices, instead of declaring liquids as diacetyl free without having any proof of that. Of course i propose zero diacetyl, because it is feasible, economically sustainable (in reality, testing can be performed by the flavoring supplier rather than the e-cigarette vendor) and will not result in flavors restrictions....

 

[eethr]

...I breathe in a lot of stuff just sitting in traffic....

I was going to bring that up also, but didn't want to pile-on too much stuff.

There must be minute amounts of just about everything in the air we all breath every day. (But that doesn't mean I like it either!)

-----

On the labeling issue, at least if juice is mislabeled it does make them liable for a lawsuit. That means lying would be a gamble for them. It could be very risky, as they would never know when someone might decide to test their product.

Of course, if "big money" gets involved, the courts and/or legislators could do just about anything---Look at GMO labeling, for example.

-----

Lately, I've been using just VG + nic, with no flavoring at all. It's pretty good, actually. It tastes kind of like a very mild cigarette. And I can even smell the nic a little bit, even though I've reduced it to a very low amount. Plus the glycerin gives it a slight sweet taste.

With different flavorings, I would still cough up various small amounts of stuff (compared to smoking). But for me, even that almost all goes away with the unflavored.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I understand all of that. My post on consumers, vendor and flavor suppliers is my best shot at how I think it should be handled. I think fraud should be handled by those committing it rather than have regulations that punish the innocent. And that's part of the problem. There are those who think no vendor is innocent. That's a political or philosophical problem. And when that is a majority view, all solutions are political - which is what they want. I'd rather find the individuals who are defrauding and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. It is what justice means. I don't even support the idea that it should be done to 'send a message' to others, but it does send a message to others as a secondary effect, but it shouldn't be a primary effect. Justice is primary.

What I don't advocate is either my personal concerns or the people that have their personal concerns being made into a generalization that ALL people should be AS concerned as they are. IOW, those that are concerned should handle it personally one way or another and be willing to pay the cost of their concerns rather than socializing those concerns for others who don't have them. And those who aren't concerned or 'understand the concern' but have a different view, can do something else.

I am with you -- almost 100%. But as far as "socializing those concerns", I don't think it's any different than much else on the forum -- if you don't buy into it, don't. No one has forced anyone to accept an opinion and any one post that is written on any one thing is no different than me having to read posts about how awesome custards are. [If you aren't vaping XYZ Custard, you are missing out!]. Actually, I think the sheer love of those flavors drowns out the little side chatter about diacetyl -- after all, look how those known diacetyl-containing flavors came back with a vengeance. Now, the consequences of this study remain to be seen, but most vapers are, from where I am standing, not thinking one bit about this (and I am on several vaping forums). After the study we shall see what happens (and I have my guess about what will happen -- but it's still a guess); as of now I just see this as another study in a long list of studies to come out. Some will support some beliefs and others will support others. In the end, my only concern is that I get chance to vape what I think I am buying.

 

[Kent C]

aubergine: 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 understand that buy still what you said was true. And I find nothing to hate about it.

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.

Again, the way to handle them is put them in jail (or fine them) without making the innocent jump through regulatory hoops, at costs that by the FDA's own admission will likely cause many scrupulous vendors to have to shut down their business and leave many customers without the choices they once had.

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.

Talk about 'extending the conversation' I won't, but there is so much evidence that science serves a political agenda and that regulatory bodies do as well, it's not worth pointing out the specifics. The concern over 'popcorn lung' came out of lawsuits initially and then the science had to prove their case. I'm not saying it didn't but there are other cases - agent orange, gulf war syndrome and others where science was just political science.

To me, this is a public health issue;

And this is your 'high road'. To me it's an individual rights issue and as such the widest 'public' issue since we all have them. And what Madison meant by 'promoting (not providing for) the general welfare' without trying to sound high minded either.

... 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.

Actually you do, but you hope some don't see it that way. And some won't.

 

[classwife]

The aggression in here has be bewildered.

I quit smoking cigarettes by accident...I bought a kit "on a whim" after a lot of research.
I decided I liked it better than smoking cigarettes, and it was a no brainer that it had to be less harmful than inhaling cigarette smoke, so I just never bought any more cigarettes.

Nowadays...yes - I really care about what I am inhaling...I want my vapor to be as harmless as possible.

If it means forgoing certain flavors...so be it - not that big of a deal, I even enjoy unflavored.

I am grateful that this study was done




(if you don't care about what you are inhaling, why even bother to quit smoking cigarettes ?)

 

[WillyZee]

I think when everything is said and done ... eLiquid as we know it today, is in for a drastic change.

There is a massive amount of popular flavours and recipes that are not going to make the cut.

 

[Kent C]

It is interesting to see that science is being accused for trying to do business through testing, while the e-cigarette industry IS ALREADY doing business (and gets huge profits). ....

This is the second time you've mentioned something along these lines. First was 'the industry making billions should do some testing'. (not a quote). This is the liberal refrain. You 'collectivize' the industry when in fact the cost to all the smaller vendors who don't have those billions or may not be getting 'huge profits', may not have the incentive or money that you think they should have.

However, the more business you convince that of this, the more likely you are to get good money for your science. See how that works? It doesn't feel so good when you're the one accused of "profit", but you seem perfectly willing to put that on others. Doctors, who do 'science' don't like to think of themselves as businessmen/women - they're 'above' that, but they are just as much a businessman as the casino owner. They have bills to pay too, golf on Wednesday and drive a Mercedes. The thing about a lot of science is that much of it is subsidized by taxpayers through grants and gov't programs (see the lastest by the FDA - perhaps you can get some of that - I hope you do could actually) by taxpayer that may not ever use any of the products tested and have no desire to finance scientific studies. But that's ok right because 'public health' is everyone's concern. Socialize the concern, then everyone has to pay.

 

[Kent C]

I am with you -- almost 100%. But as far as "socializing those concerns", I don't think it's any different than much else on the forum -- if you don't buy into it, don't. No one has forced anyone to accept an opinion and any one post that is written on any one thing is no different than me having to read posts about how awesome custards are. [If you aren't vaping XYZ Custard, you are missing out!]. Actually, I think the sheer love of those flavors drowns out the little side chatter about diacetyl -- after all, look how those known diacetyl-containing flavors came back with a vengeance. Now, the consequences of this study remain to be seen, but most vapers are, from where I am standing, not thinking one bit about this (and I am on several vaping forums). After the study we shall see what happens (and I have my guess about what will happen -- but it's still a guess); as of now I just see this as another study in a long list of studies to come out. Some will support some beliefs and others will support others. In the end, my only concern is that I get chance to vape what I think I am buying.

Yeah, living life contains risks. D'uh (not aimed at you I understood the 10% less time in life when I was smoking. I was good with it. But others were not good with me (or you or others) being good with it, and went to gov't to socialize their concerns. We've all paid dearly for that. I don't want that to happen with vaping but this thread is if not the start of that, a continuance. Some people can't just leave well enough alone - they have to have a 'cause' to show people they 'care'

 

[Anjaffm]

I understand all of that. My post on consumers, vendor and flavor suppliers is my best shot at how I think it should be handled. I think fraud should be handled by those committing it rather than have regulations that punish the innocent. And that's part of the problem. There are those who think no vendor is innocent. That's a political or philosophical problem. And when that is a majority view, all solutions are political - which is what they want. I'd rather find the individuals who are defrauding and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. It is what justice means. I don't even support the idea that it should be done to 'send a message' to others, but it does send a message to others as a secondary effect, but it shouldn't be a primary effect. Justice is primary.

What I don't advocate is either my personal concerns or the people that have their personal concerns being made into a generalization that ALL people should be AS concerned as they are. IOW, those that are concerned should handle it personally one way or another and be willing to pay the cost of their concerns rather than socializing those concerns for others who don't have them. And those who aren't concerned or 'understand the concern' but have a different view, can do something else.

I fully agree.
This is the first time that I have actually concerned myself with the issue of diacetyl, as I do not vape one flavor exclusively for long periods of time. Everything in moderation ...

I did contribute to the study, and I am glad that the findings are out. After all, it is a very nice thing to make vaping safer and to enable consumers to make informed choices.

My personal informed choice for the day is:
My beloved Capella Vanilla Custard flavoring claims "diacetyl free" (see here), and although I could vape Vanilla Custard 24 hours a day (I love it so much) but actually I do no such thing (see above: everything in moderation), I am satisfied (for myself) that indulging in vaping my beloved Vanilla Custard liquid once in a while is ok for me.

For myself, vaping is a very enjoyable form of harm reduction. I smoked tobacco for 35 years, 1 PAD or more, so vaping is definitely less harmful. Much less harmful. I personally can live with a small remaining risk. And no, I do not want strict governmental regulation imposed. Consumers can decide what they want and what they do not want, consumers can put pressure on vendors to include A and to not include B.

Example:
Almost all e-liquid bottles sold in Germany have child proof caps. Vapers wanted that. We got it. This is how a market works unless government messes with it.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
Ronald Reagan

.....
edit:

Yeah, living life contains risks. D'uh (not aimed at you I understood the 10% less time in life when I was smoking. I was good with it. But others were not good with me (or you or others) being good with it and went to gov't to socialize their concerns. We've all paid dearly for that. I don't want that to happen with vaping but this thread is if not the start of that, a continuance. Some people can't just leave well enough alone - they have to have a 'cause' to show people they 'care'

Well said

And puh-lease people, do not start a "cause" on my behalf. Just don't.
IF I have a problem with something, I will say so. OK?

I am all for information. I am all for informed choices.
Gimme the information, and I will make an informed choice.
But puh-lease, do not "make the choice" for me. I have had enough of politicians "making choices" for me, ok?

 

[Kent C]

classwife:The aggression in here has be bewildered.

It goes to what jman said - this is beginning to look like what the ANTZ have done.

I quit smoking cigarettes by accident...I bought a kit "on a whim" after a lot of research.
I decided I liked it better than smoking cigarettes, and it was a no brainer that it had to be less harmful than inhaling cigarette smoke, so I just never bought any more cigarettes.

And you knew more in that moment than any of the ANTZ studies. The body tells one a lot.

Nowadays...yes - I really care about what I am inhaling...I want my vapor to be as harmless as possible.

Then you should find out what it is.

If it means forgoing certain flavors...so be it - not that big of a deal, I even enjoy unflavored.

I am grateful that this study was done




(if you don't care about what you are inhaling, why even bother to quit smoking cigarettes ?)

Because traces of stuff and imagined harms are less than actual harms. Plus it's more enjoyable and it costs less.... Well it Will cost less unless people concerned about the former equal those concerned about the latter.

 

[Jman8]

It is interesting to see that science is being accused for trying to do business through testing, while the e-cigarette industry IS ALREADY doing business (and gets huge profits). What is the problem in doing something that will make e-cigarettes better? At least, let the consumers make informed choices, instead of declaring liquids as diacetyl free without having any proof of that. Of course i propose zero diacetyl, because it is feasible, economically sustainable (in reality, testing can be performed by the flavoring supplier rather than the e-cigarette vendor) and will not result in flavors restrictions....

I liked this post. Sorry for implying that science is trying to do business through testing. I don't see science doing that, but those who fund it, I see as plausibly having an agenda. That agenda's primary concern, as I understand it, is to vape a safe product. Hard to criticize that.

Yet, what Kent was saying is I feel the norm of how this goes almost all of the time.

people that have their personal concerns being made into a generalization that ALL people should be AS concerned as they are.

Some of those people are scientists, but by far the majority are not.

Where I differ from Kent is I wouldn't like to see people prosecuted to full extent of law unless it was proven to be malicious. The diacetyl-free claim that actually delivers product containing diacetyl is, for me, similar to nic-free juice having micrograms of nicotine in there. Arguably, the nicotine one, in our popular culture is far worse. Here on vaping forum, I imagine we all agree that diacetyl is (far) worse. At any rate, I'd rather have the vendor offered opportunity to change when claim is found erroneous, or simply exposed for telling the fib and everyone move on. I, as consumer, may still wish to buy that product, while vast majority may go elsewhere. Telling me I can't have it (via vendor) and/or shouldn't have it, when majority of us are now having it, is for me, reason not to get bent out of shape over this issue. And by bent out of shape, I mean make this an agenda item for the entire industry to adhere to. I don't see science, nor scientists, doing that.

Also just wish to note what I see as obvious, which is FDA seems likely to suggest vendor test in addition to flavor supplier. I'd be very okay if problem could be corrected (for all concerned) if it was just at the flavor supplier level. If that is what you and others are saying, I concur. Let's do that. But do just wish to add that neither vendor nor consumer can say with certainty that what they are distributing/vaping is safe product, if that is what the process entails. And is also, not vastly different than the way things are currently.

And compelled to note that 'correction' to the problem could plausibly (though may not) introduce other problems if anyone's agenda is to make sweet tasting flavors that consumers enjoy.

 

[sonicdsl]

Some of this discussion is just getting a little out of hand, including borderline accusations, and we need to cool it a little.



The whole point of this was to get information. We got it. So now we are discussing what we can do with that information. Hopefully something amicable to everyone can be determined before the government decides that they have to step in and play nanny some more (though it may occur anyway).

Personally, I'm somewhat with Dr. Farsalinos, in that if a consumer prefers no D&A in their flavorings, they will make it known, and if enough do so, then it will happen. Yes, there is a little faith involved, but that's in every industry with anything in a similar vein. So Flavoring Mfr. A decides they're going to be sure no D&A is in a flavor (or any flavor maybe), and test it to nth degree, and make the claim. They would then need to make available (website, email, whatever makes sense) the certificate of conformity to that claim. The faith is that the certificate is valid.

I'm also somewhat with classwife here in that I do not want anything in the liquid that doesn't need to be in there, if that's avoidable. But the added risk is minimal, from what I can tell, and it should be my decision, as an individual to make that determination. So again, it's information, and what I choose to do with it.

More information is needed, I think, before any real plan of action can be determined. Cost is probably the foremost consideration, but I agree with Dr Farsalinos in that it should be borne on the flavoring manufacturers, since that is where this is originating. I also personally think that if a liquid supplier makes a claim about D&A free, that they should either have their own testing, or divulge the flavoring manufacturer so we know if they're being truthful.

Ultimately I just want to know so I can make that decision for myself, and share it with others if it's a concern.


Moving along now.

 

[Jman8]

The aggression in here has be bewildered.

You say this without quoting where you are seeing this. This is a dicey issue and could have significant ramifications going forward. At least two ways to filter all this, and some of us are concerned with how much this could hurt industry more than actually making vaping a more safe product.

It seems similar to me to concern for FDA involvement in the industry. Not the same, and if I go too far in that direction, I'd be facing uphill battle, but I would think over aggression toward FDA is something that could be tempered. Though hard to do when you realize those type of scientists are agenda setters (leaning heavily toward ANTZ ideology).

I quit smoking cigarettes by accident...I bought a kit "on a whim" after a lot of research.
I decided I liked it better than smoking cigarettes, and it was a no brainer that it had to be less harmful than inhaling cigarette smoke, so I just never bought any more cigarettes.

Nowadays...yes - I really care about what I am inhaling...I want my vapor to be as harmless as possible.

If it means forgoing certain flavors...so be it - not that big of a deal, I even enjoy unflavored.

I am grateful that this study was done

(if you don't care about what you are inhaling, why even bother to quit smoking cigarettes ?)

I haven't quit smoking cigarettes, and do care about what I am inhaling. My counter question to this would be if you smoked cigarettes (in neighborhood of 100 or more in your lifetime) then why treat this as huge deal? I get that you care about what you are inhaling, as I feel we all do. Yet, between smoking and daily living in/near a city or many other instances on this planet, you are going to inhale unwanted things that may or may not be avoidable, depending on how you choose to live a life.

I guess my pertinent question would be are you (anyone) okay with vendor distributing diacetyl laced eLiquid to buyers who are okay with taking the risk? Truly okay with it? Or would you rather see a vendor made to change that for the (alleged) benefit of both the industry and its consumers?

 

[Anjaffm]

Personally, I'm somewhat with Dr. Farsalinos, in that if a consumer prefers no D&A in their flavorings, they will make it known, and if enough do so, then it will happen. Yes, there is a little faith involved, but that's in every industry with anything in a similar vein. So Flavoring Mfr. A decides they're going to be sure no D&A is in a flavor (or any flavor maybe), and test it to nth degree, and make the claim. They would then need to make available (website, email, whatever makes sense) the certificate of conformity to that claim. The faith is that the certificate is valid.

Sounds good to me.

But the added risk is minimal, from what I can tell, and it should be my decision, as an individual to make that determination. So again, it's information, and what I choose to do with it.

Precisely.

More information is needed, I think, before any real plan of action can be determined. Cost is probably the foremost consideration, but I agree with Dr Farsalinos in that it should be borne on the flavoring manufacturers, since that is where this is originating. I also personally think that if a liquid supplier makes a claim about D&A free, that they should either have their own testing, or divulge the flavoring manufacturer so we know if they're being truthful.

Ultimately I just want to know so I can make that decision for myself, and share it with others if it's a concern.

Bingo

This is a dicey issue and could have significant ramifications going forward. At least two ways to filter all this, and some of us are concerned with how much this could hurt industry more than actually making vaping a more safe product.

Precisely. Hurt the industry - and hurt the vapers.
FDA deeming regulations, anyone? EU Tobacco Products Directive, anyone?

I guess my pertinent question would be are you (anyone) okay with vendor distributing diacetyl laced eLiquid to buyers who are okay with taking the risk? Truly okay with it? Or would you rather see a vendor made to change that for the (alleged) benefit of both the industry and its consumers?

question 1. : yes.
There is a lot of food and drink on the market that I do not consume. Yet I do not want it forbidden.

question 2: no.
We have all been down that road, haven't we? As smokers, we were dragged down that road, kicking and screaming. "For our own good". Not again, please.

 

[Mr.Mann]

One of the many things I can say about ECF versus the five or six other vaping forums I am on: this conversation just could not and would not be this thoughtful elsewhere (at least from what I've seen). But -- and here is something that is nagging at me -- one thing that ECF has in spades is older well-established vapers. Not saying we don't have a constant influx of new and younger vapers popping up, but this forum is held down by the experienced -- and the overwhelming majority of that experience is made up of former/current smokers.

Why is that nagging at me? In my more-recent dealings with the "newbie" community (yes, they are basically their own community -- and it's quite large), there is a growing segment of them that were not previously smokers (proportionately more now than I think in previous years). Never smoked. Nope. And never would! So what does that mean? Vaping is for anyone (18 and up) that wants to do so. Too many of us ignore this and always fall back on a harm-reduction type stance when, for many in our community now, there was never the initial "harm" to begin with. Nothing being reduced! Sure, obviously vaping should be considered harm-reduction to those that smoked -- it is for me and it saved me from a lot more -- but it's not like you need proof of past history to partake in vaping (regardless of what I think). To constantly make the comparisons to cigarettes that are "bad", therefore, as long as vaping is less than that it's okay -- well, that's not okay as an argument, at least when the common wisdom is that vaping's basically a fun and "safe" activity of "water vapor" and innocuous flavors.

If there are ways to reduce the potential harm of vaping -- not just vaping reducing the harm of smoking by offering an alternative -- we ought to have some kind of go at it from within the community for those that want it. Not obligatorily, but voluntarily. Options and information. Take it or leave it. Just having the options of no flavoring/flavoring or nicotine/no nicotine is not going to be enough much longer considering the door is so wide open. Getting better as a market and community does not only include developing more tasty flavors, fancier gear and bigger-cloud producing devices, but having some impetus to develop liquids and gear devoid of things that are, to some consumers, more questionable than necessary. For that we will need science. I don't ever want to see a situation where we are forced to vape our vegetables (LOL) if we want to vape, but it would be great if those that were concerned about such things knew exactly where to go.

 

[Kent C]

Some of this discussion is just getting a little out of hand, including borderline accusations, and we need to cool it a little.

There was nothing 'borderline' about the accusations of lying. The implications that vendors should finance the science isn't really an accusation but it implies that they are not being responsible. This might be true for some but for others, not. As for my own comments to Dr. F. regarding his own profit. I don't consider profit a bad thing but from his comments he seems to. So it wasn't so much an accusation or an "aggression" but to have him walk in the shoes he was putting on vendors. I'm all for profit as long as no fraud or coercion is involved.