Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study

[Kent C]

Kurt, thanks once again for your expertise in these matters.

 

[Kent C]

"There will always be, and has always been, opposing sides to ANY issue, to any lifestyle, to any idea, to any innovation, to any invention, and to any philsophy.

That is normal. And the way of the world. That's the spur we are all digging, every single day, around numerous life issues, not just vaping..... " Racehorse

 

[Kent C]

I would urge people to see Bill's recent post here:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...hol-report-orders-fda-reconstitute-tpsac.html

... and look at how certain comments can affect the objectivity of studies.

And also how the comments of the judge could help us in our comment period for the deeming wrt anti-ecig studies.

 

[bigdancehawk]

This is a non-sequitur.

1. We don't know if the effect of these contaminants is the same in tobacco smoke and ecig vapor.

2. Farsalinos didn't test for sub-ohmers vaping 20ml of creamy custard flavor a day. That might work out to many times the diacetyl that a smoker inhales.

3. If a vaper buys a refill on the strength of its professed freedom from contaminants, but the refill is in fact contaminated because the vendor did not do their own testing but just repeated what they were told by the flavor supplier (and we have multiple examples that flavor suppliers lie), then a case for criminal negligence exists.

I respectfully suggest caution when tossing around adjectives like "criminal."

 

[Mr.Mann]

Edited due to Roly's editing of the original post.

 

[eethr]

There are things that are criminal, yet not currently against the law.

There are currently laws against things which are not criminal.

Currently, fraud absolutely is a crime.

If a contract is made to purchase a product with guaranteed specifications, especially if including some kind of certification, then anything else could result in various penalties, from civil to criminal, depending on the exact circumstances.

It is what it is....

 

[rolygate]

I respectfully suggest caution when tossing around adjectives like "criminal."

You are absolutely right, this was a typo as what I meant was fraud. I've altered the post accordingly.

 

[Mr.Mann]

There are things that are criminal, yet not currently against the law.

There are currently laws against things which are not criminal.

Currently, fraud absolutely is a crime.

If a contract is made to purchase a product with guaranteed specifications, especially if including some kind of certification, then anything else could result in various penalties, from civil to criminal, depending on the exact circumstances.

It is what it is....

I was on a site last night that proclaimed in bold letters on their buttery flavors: NO DIACETYL IS IN THIS LIQUID

Not, "our supplier has told us...", "as far as we know...", "we didn't specifically add any...", etc., but what it said was pretty damn definitive. It's probably time for vendors to take down those kind of statements from their websites.

 

[aubergine]

What would be definitive proof reasonable to request from a vendor? I think only a copy of lab cert, per flavor or relevant portion, would be adequate. My go-to vendor supplies these, but only to wholesale buyers. What think you?
(I'm not asking this because I want to charge anyone with fraud; I'm not litigious except in a very tight pinch.
In reality not many of us are about to take e-cig vendors to court, I think. But if all of this conversation about wanting to know what's in our juice is in earnest, then we need to have some substantial way to seek verification from our vendors. We've learned that website claims mean little. It's actually normative for a lot of vapers to have some feeling of trusting, almost familial relationship with their favorite vendors [if you don't hang in the juice forums that might sound crazy, but it's quite true, and I'll cop to that one myself]. There's a reddit page [I think it was reddit] where someone posted a number of pretty long and respectful responses from vendors that they'd emailed, most of them denying d&a in their products - and I suspect that the vendors believed what they were saying. Now it's clear that those reassurances might have been meaningless.) Is anyone in here actually planning to press their own favorite supplier?

 

[Kurt]

They need to get some sort of analysis done, with limit of detection under around 10 micrograms/mL. 1 microgram/mL would be better. Several methods are possible. We used HPLC with a derivatizing agent. Very established method for carbonyl compounds. But not easy to do right. The lab chosen should be familiar with the issues that arise with complex mixtures of many compounds. There are several ways to do it, but what is important is the limit of detection and also a low limit of quantification. Without these two values, a flavor that has DA or AP present may test falsely negative. Just a GC-MS that says it is not present is not good enough, although many would probably accept it. And without these low limits, a vendor will be tempted because it will be a cheap test.

 

[aubergine]

They need to get some sort of analysis done, with limit of detection under around 10 micrograms/mL. 1 microgram/mL would be better. Several methods are possible. We used HPLC with a derivatizing agent. Very established method for carbonyl compounds. But not easy to do right. The lab chosen should be familiar with the issues that arise with complex mixtures of many compounds. There are several ways to do it, but what is important is the limit of detection and also a low limit of quantification. Without these two values, a flavor that has DA or AP present may test falsely negative. Just a GC-MS that says it is not present is not good enough, although many would probably accept it. And without these low limits, a vendor will be tempted because it will be a cheap test.

Thanks. How burdensome would you think it'd be for a vendor to perform that analysis adequately - just a rough ballpark, if that's possible - either in-house if there's an adequate lab, or sent out, per flavor? How much money per flavor, how much time? We know what the FDA estimates for what I assume is a very broad-spectrum analysis; others have suggested very much lower figures.

We can say that the flavor manufacturers 'should' bear that burden, but just practically speaking they have very little incentive to add (or rigorously revise) a whole new 'especially tested for vaping' line, especially in light of uncertain variables - at this point anyway. Consumers are most certainly not going to shoulder that one. That leaves the vendors, and I'd like to know if we're talking about something that's even feasible.

And are the vendors approved by the very conscientious AEMSA even most certainly selling a&d free products? How can they know unless they're manufacturing their flavorings in-house and specifically testing their own products, since flavorings that claimed to be free of a&d tested positive?

AEMSA:

Version 1.8 7
(i)
Material must maintain full certification throughout chain of custody on raw materials used in manufacturing process
(ii)
Manufacturer must exclusively use certified base products throughout the manufacturing process
Section 2.04
...........
Ingredients/ Components other than base liquids
(a)
Ingredients/ Components other than base liquids will contain only safe or highest grade base materials
(i)
Flavorings (including menthol) used will be at a minimum of food grade and/or Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)
standard certifications whenever the ingredient is produced at those standards
(ii) Flavorings containing artificial food coloring will identify food coloring information to include coloring number in
advertising and product descriptions
(iii) Flavorings containing Custard Notes will identify advertising and product descriptions
(iv)
Water used (if any) will be either deionized or distilled
(v)
Alcohol and additional additives (if any) will be:
1)
Used in the purest form commercially available and safe for human consumption
2)
Minimum of US Food grade standards
Section 2.05
The following will not be added or used in the creation of e-liquids
(a)
Including but not limited to:
(i)
Diacetyl
(ii)
WTA (whole tobacco alkaloids)
(iii)
Medicinal - or prescription medicinal
(iv)
Illegal or controlled substances
(v)
Caffeine
(vi)
Vitamins or Dietary supplements (other than for preservative purposes)
(vii) Artifical Food Coloring
1)
AEMSA members will not add any artificial coloring or dyes during the e-liquid manufacturing process. Non vendor
manufactured flavorings containing artificial food coloring will identify food coloring information to include coloring
number in advertising and product descriptions
(viii)
AEMSA reserves the right to review, evaluate and deny/approve any potential substance used in the creation of e-liquids
at any given time
Section 2.06
...........
Process/Records/Traceability
(a)
Manufactures will maintain sufficient process and records to enable the manufacturer to trace any individual product
distributed to the test results for nicotine content to include source nicotine...

my italics

 

[Racehorse]

Can anyone explain to me why (small) vendors in Canada seem to be able to afford to test their elqiuids, but nobody stateside can?

I believe their org is called ECTA. The vendors send in few samples every 6 months.

This vendor explains it pretty well:

Vapemate E-Liquid Testing for Consumer Safety in Canada

Their testing facility is in the US, not Canada.

Do they charge US vendors more than Canadian vendors which makes it un affordable to eliquid companies here.......or what?

 

[vangrl27]

Can anyone explain to me why (small) vendors in Canada seem to be able to afford to test their elqiuids, but nobody stateside can?

I believe their org is called ECTA. The vendors send in few samples every 6 months.

This vendor explains it pretty well:

Vapemate E-Liquid Testing for Consumer Safety in Canada

Their testing facility is in the US, not Canada.

Do they charge US vendors more than Canadian vendors which makes it un affordable to eliquid companies here.......or what?

Interesting to note, last time I looked at ECTA's member list it was around 8, that was about 8 months ago, I now see they have 23 members. You have to abide by their testing rules to be a member. On the Canadian forum you see a lot of people saying they'll only buy from ECTA members, that they want to support the vendors that are paying to have the testing done.

So yes it can be done, it's not that expensive, they are testing with the small detection level that Kurt spoke about, and from a business sense, it makes sense as it seems to be a selling point on the consumer end.

 

[Jman8]

What would be definitive proof reasonable to request from a vendor? I think only a copy of lab cert, per flavor or relevant portion, would be adequate.

I disagree that lab cert would be adequate for definitive proof.

You desire definitive proof? Then you take on that responsibility and do the test yourself. Otherwise, definitive proof is not what we are talking about.

 

[RosaJ]

I disagree that lab cert would be adequate for definitive proof.

You desire definitive proof? Then you take on that responsibility and do the test yourself. Otherwise, definitive proof is not what we are talking about.

I would love to see a kit anyone can buy to make the determination. Is there such a thing?

 

[bigdancehawk]

Simple health economics says that if vaping is 100th as dangerous as smoking, you would need 100 new lifelong smokers (that otherwise would not have smoked) per new vaper for there to be a net negative public health impact.

I haven't yet read to the end of the thread, so maybe it's already covered, but I don't understand this. I'm not particularly good with numbers, but it seems backwards to me. And I don't get who the 100 smokers are who "otherwise would not have smoked." What is the factor that causes them to smoke, i.e., without which they would not have done so?

 

[bigdancehawk]

This is wise. (bold).... And I know of no way, no method, no study, to be able to tell that with any degree of certainty - hence I have the same conclusion - give it no credit, (and don't find it 'troubling'), but it should be noted

That's because you don't live in the Utopia of TC, where smoking has been abolished. In that world, vaping has no utility and is therefore bad.

 

[aubergine]

I disagree that lab cert would be adequate for definitive proof.

You desire definitive proof? Then you take on that responsibility and do the test yourself. Otherwise, definitive proof is not what we are talking about.

I'd be satisfied with the margin of error involved in an analysis like the one we're discussing here. And it's the existence of the analysis that I'm talking about proving definitively. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

If you really want to get carried away you could point out that lab certs can be forged, so perhaps I should say "with some certainty". As with virtually everything, there are uncontrollable variables. As has been pointed out, there are unavoidable toxins in the air we breathe. That doesn't mean we should abandon air quality control, or just tell citizens buy masks (which is what it comes to when no one is tending to that problem).

I'm trying to figure out the actual (not just hypothesized) weight of the burden that vendors would shoulder if they decided to test their product for these specific substances.

If I asked a vendor about that and he or she said, "Test it your own damn self, testing's not definitive, anyway", I'd not purchase from that vendor. And I'd consider that vendor a liability to our reduced-harm cause*.

If that vendor said, "I'm concerned too, but this is exactly what it would cost for me to have my product analyzed properly and it's clear that I'd no longer have a viable business - but I make no claim that my products are d&a free though I do my best with what's available to me", then OK, and we're where we started.

My interest is in vendors who do test their product, if that testing includes analysis of finished product for a&d, and if that's a viable requirement for business associations (and consumers, very few of whom are interested in either DIY or unflavored liquid). Kurt has answered my question about the most accurate analysis - I'm wanting to know just what that would actually entail financially.

*Writing in this thread is tricky, because we're talking about further harm (or risk) reduction in a product that is the best existing standard for that by far, and elsewhere most of us are vigorously arguing that. It's consistent with that aim, though, to respond responsibly to any information that might help us make vaping as harm-free as we reasonably can.

 

[Kent C]

That's because you don't live in the Utopia of TC, where smoking has been abolished. In that world, vaping has no utility and is therefore bad.

Lol...Thanks

Although I think there are positive effects of nicotine. I think it's obvious - why would so many people in history take up smoking? We've just found a better way to deliver it.

 

[bigdancehawk]

When someone states that individual companies have a responsibility BECAUSE the industry as a whole makes billions, they're making a category error that doesn't relate the individual economics of a company to that of the industry. If he wants to make the case then he should state something along the lines that after costs a certain company has so much excess that they, IF they are going to make DA-free statements, should do testing. It's the generalization that implies what I said and the idea that as long as he says 'billions' and 'huge profits' that he's going to make sense to a certain segment of society. I'm not part of the segment. And I'm going to call it on him or anyone else who would attempt to make that argument. It's the reason I rarely use 'BT' because it automatically implies something other than the 'tobacco industry'.

I agree philosophically, but Dr. F says the flavor manufacturers should pay for the testing and we've already learned that the tests in question are dirt cheap.