Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study

Status
Not open for further replies.

aubergine

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 22, 2010
2,467
1,994
MD

Because almost all vendors already have "statements of quality" on their website, and this study has shown that very many of these claims are false, whether because vendors are mistaken or because they're dishonest (I think often a little bit of both). Anyone can link anyone to a vendor site already - there are many threads here in which "organic" juices are listed and etc. also.

The whole point of a list generated by what we learned from this study would be ascertain which specific vendors provide specific documented proof that they'd tested their product adequately (per excellent distinctions made by Kurt here) and could demonstrate the validity of their claim.

We've always had vendors out there claiming to have no D&A, they're easy to find. What would be much more helpful would be able to identify those vendors (and there were some in this study) whose products really and demonstrably are, to the extent that that can be demonstrated. (We've already exhausted the discussion in here re acknowledging and tolerating some degree of uncertainty, I hope.)

"Some sites might merely say, "Our ejuice is great," while other might go so far as to publish their lab results. And lots of them would be somewhere in between."

Exactly. None of that would be helpful. It'd just be another list of competing claims, which has it's place, but wouldn't be the function of a specifically designated list that would help people who are concerned about this (which is not a majority of vapers I think) to find what they're looking for quickly and easily.

But given the restraints (very correctly) placed on vendors here, and the legal issues for vendors (not sure if simple disclosure could be construed as advertising health benefits, but vendors have to be careful) it might be that what's needed is an off-site data base... perhaps we are really just looping back to business associations like AEMSA.

It'd be a lot nicer to have some such thing in here, where so many congregate.

Because
I see no reason to wait on this when I could be patronizing the "early adopters" who I would like to reward with my business, quite frankly. If it 'occured" to them then they seem like the kind of vendors who seem a little ahead of the curve, so to speak.
(Racehorse)
 
Last edited:

sonicdsl

Wandering life's highway
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 11, 2011
17,744
19,244
Yeah. It should definitely be a moderated thread - there have been plenty of threads attempting to list juices that the thread-starter believes are 'healthier' - a lot extrapolate from food preferences like 'organic', 'natural', 'kosher'... and even 'diacetyl free' They usually disseminate a lot of misinformation, efforts to correct same, and then devolve into tangential, irritable arguments about whether or not anyone should care.

I think that the best idea would be to briefly present the results of the study, with a balanced rationale for concern that isn't vulnerable to charges that anyone here wants to set up a police state or start a misguided panic, and that reiterates the harm-reduction value of ecigs, especially since this is an easily avoidable problem.
It should also include a way to read the analyses in relation to cigarette levels/NIOSH standards or whatever seems best, so that they're meaningful to readers.
Some vendors who rigorously test and have very good results might not be particularly interested in posting lab results in ECF, for various reasons (not having to do with deception) - if those vendors publish their data on their website, though, there ought to be allowance by mods (via mods) to supply the link to consumers browsing the list, I think.

The difficulty might be that vendors are not allowed to advertise their products in ECF except in their own subforums, and to the extent that such a list could be construed as advertising, it's not gonna fly. And I think there are complications for vendors who want to use that as a marketing tool - it's not legal to claim harm reduction or health benefits, remember!!
Enough to make one tear one's hair.
I'd like thoughts from the mods and any vendors following this thread on that.

You pretty much nailed it here. Vendors are not permitted to post about their products/services outside of their thread or forum. We cannot post a list of vendors of one name or another, so as to not show favoritism.

If consumers were to start a thread of vendors who've done testing, etc., say, in the General E-Liquid Discussion forum, that would be fine. I realize that's not really all that controlled, but under the circumstances, it's probably the best bet.
 

aubergine

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 22, 2010
2,467
1,994
MD
sonicdsl
If consumers were to start a thread of vendors who've done testing, etc., say, in the General E-Liquid Discussion forum, that would be fine. I realize that's not really all that controlled, but under the circumstances, it's probably the best bet.


Yeah. But I'm skeptical about outcome, bin around too long - I mean, there are threads that very specifically ask that only certain things be posted and request no comments, like "3 favorite juices", and those, which have no controversy attached, still derail. Not sure I want to invite another big confused diacetyl hullabaloo (we've had plenty of those, too) that's likely to end up missing the original point, throwing out a lot of misinformation and further blurring the issue.
That's just me.
Sigh.
 
Last edited:

Mr.Mann

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 30, 2011
17,401
40,572
46
All over the place
sonicdsl


Yeah. But I'm skeptical about outcome, bin around too long - I mean, there are threads that very specifically ask that only certain things be posted and request no comments, like "3 favorite juices", and those, which have no controversy attached, still derail. Not sure I want to invite another big confused diacetyl hullabaloo (we've had plenty of those, too) that's likely to end up missing the original point, throwing out a lot of misinformation and further blurring the issue.
That's just me.
Sigh.

(a) Vendor Vapor test all their liquids!

(b) For real? Test for what?

(a) Let me ask...Oh, they test for nic strength.

(b) LOL

If the thread had specific parameters like vendors that post test results of a specific testing, that MAY help. Especially if it was ONLY about the posted results. I won't hold my breath waiting for that thread though.
 

eethr

Senior Member
Jan 28, 2014
70
55
Central California
None of that would be helpful. It'd just be another list of competing claims, which has it's place, but wouldn't be the function of a specifically designated list that would help people who are concerned about this (which is not a majority of vapers I think) to find what they're looking for quickly and easily.

You are exactly right.

So the thing would need to be just for links to published copies of actual lab test reports.

That would be the dividing line. And that's all that would pertain to this thread.

That would be of value.
 

aubergine

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 22, 2010
2,467
1,994
MD
I think so, eethr. And at this point that'd be a mighty slim thread.

This thread has had 16,528 views. If even a small percentile of those readers have understood the study and the results, and if some of those are concerned, and got the gist from the discussion of what to ask their own vendors ["No diacetyl!" isn't a meaningful claim in itself, and it's not taboo to ask about testing methodology as explained by Kurt and others, and for the publication of relevant lab results], and decide to do so, then the study has opened important doors - tidy, handy ECF list or not.

Word gets around and consumers will either pass the info on or not, and will decide whether to take personal action or not. I think that's the way it might happen irl, and that'd be a decent start.

My like button has disappeared again. What GIVES with that? :) :)
 
Last edited:

eethr

Senior Member
Jan 28, 2014
70
55
Central California
I think so, eethr. And at this point that'd be a mighty slim thread.

This thread has had 16,528 views. If even a small percentile of those readers have understood the study and the results, and if some of those are concerned, and got the gist from the discussion of what to ask their own vendors ["No diacetyl!" isn't a meaningful claim in itself, and it's not taboo to ask about testing methodology as explained by Kurt and others, and for the publication of relevant lab results], and decide to do so, then the study has opened important doors - tidy, handy ECF list or not.

Word gets around and consumers will either pass the info on or not, and will decide whether to take personal action or not. I think that's the way it might happen irl, and that'd be a decent start.

My like button has disappeared again. What GIVES with that? :) :)


My like button shows up on all the posts (except for my own, of course). Try reloading the page, then if that doesn't work try closing and reopening your browser, and if that doesn't do it, restart your computer.

I would think that word would spread pretty fast, if people start emailing their vendors (and it would only take a few at first). Then a prudent seller would make a page showing their lab reports as fast as they can get the results. The first few to get listed (or just list themselves), will receive a huge benefit from that. It's the kind of thing that starts small---and snowballs. Honesty is very popular, and as much safety as possible, is too.
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,272
USA midwest
"No diacetyl!" isn't a meaningful claim in itself

That is correct. I believe the researchers said that the only way to know would be to test.

Anyone then who feels strongly about it, start the topic.

I am not in the eliqiud business, and as such, I'm not shelling, protecting, incriminating, nor marketing for any eliquid or flavoring vendors, and don't plan on doing so. I'll leave that to the fanbois/girls.

I already read one post by a vendor who has "disclosed" that their eliquid contains one of those 2 components, and they feel that they have *done their duty* by disclosing that. They did not mention any plans to remove it from their shelves, nor did they provide test results. (If it were me I would make sure I had good legal counsel who understood, and was able to explain, any and all product liability laws in my state, as well as how they effect my product's entire chain of distribution. But my personal business models are very .....comprehensive and bullet-proof.)

For myself, going forward, if my flavoring vendor and eliquid vendor cannot assure me (by presenting a test) that these components are absent from my purchases, then they won't be my vendor anymore. I don't think that is a surprise to anyone since I have already said I do not wish to vape that.

So for some consumers, this will end up being a very *black and white* issue, at least in terms of the AP and DA presence in eliquid.
 
Last edited:

Oliver

ECF Founder, formerly SmokeyJoe
Admin
Verified Member
Jman - understood, but this is going to happen no matter what at the point at which the study is published in a scientific journal. That is likely to be soon.

So, noting this, what should we be doing to encourage consumers to push back on suppliers, if anything?

Racehorse - I've seen this too. In fact, one supplier had something along the lines of: "contains less than 1% diacetyl. Diacetyl is a naturally occurring compound found in fruits" < no mention that it's associated with bronchiolitis obliterans! In fact, the way it's written makes Diacetyl sounds perfectly fine.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,927
Wisconsin
Jman - understood, but this is going to happen no matter what at the point at which the study is published in a scientific journal. That is likely to be soon.

So, noting this, what should we be doing to encourage consumers to push back on suppliers, if anything?

I think what could be done to encourage a change depends on perspective. If consumers are leading the charge, within context of a very vocal opposition that will pounce on the news, I think it could 'end vaping as we know it' faster than what FDA may do in 2 to 4 years. Suddenly the vaping of sweet flavors is something that we have (significant) issue with. I don't see how that could play out well unless every vendor is on the same page AND the media/ANTZ go very easy on us during the transition by vendors.

As I understand the issue, these things (D & A) pose a known risk when inhaled. And the only way to truly know if it is present is to run a specific type of lab test. Seems we, vaping enthusiasts, are ruling out free market solution to the issue and seeking a quasi-regulatory approach. This approach, to me, means that it will be identified as a problem for everyone to be concerned about, even if another consumer understands the risk and is willing to live with it. That will be ignored or downplayed in favor of market (vendors) must correct the perceived problem because (segment of the) consumers demand it.

My version of what ought to happen is consumers run the tests, otherwise they will be relying on faith/credibility and hey, look where that got us so far on this issue?

I think vast majority of consumers will not run the tests citing it as too expensive, too impractical for individuals to do own testing (or access labs that test), IOW passing the buck.

I think that as FDA regulations are looming and inevitable, it may be best to let FDA be the entity that allegedly is looking out for consumer interests. Though that could be another 1 to 3 years before they do anything remotely effective. I do continue to wonder if us who are aware of this are still saying in FDA comments or otherwise, that eLiquid has no known health risks? It is hard to read the umpteen hundred other threads on ECF where people say the same old thing (eLiquid has 4 ingredients and all are GRAS) when this thread is saying something quite contradictory to that.

Having some (concerned) vapers speak for all is, for me, not the solution. I think it is likely to go in this direction, and wish it were otherwise.

If not putting onus on the individual consumer to do own testing, and not waiting for FDA to address issue with vendors, then my other suggestion would be for consumers to find a vendor type organization (such as AEMSA?) that will create the list that is desired and work as a liaison of sorts between industry and enthusiast / consumer. I do not think consumers ought to be creating that list, unless consumers can back that up with their own testing. With that said, if consumers did in fact pay for this test, then that would be example of consumers doing own testing and list ought to be created. If consumers that paid are not able to have this happen, then not sure what to say. To me, anyway we slice this issue, politics will get in the way.
 

Mr.Mann

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 30, 2011
17,401
40,572
46
All over the place
I think what could be done to encourage a change depends on perspective. If consumers are leading the charge, within context of a very vocal opposition that will pounce on the news, I think it could 'end vaping as we know it' faster than what FDA may do in 2 to 4 years. Suddenly the vaping of sweet flavors is something that we have (significant) issue with. I don't see how that could play out well unless every vendor is on the same page AND the media/ANTZ go very easy on us during the transition by vendors.

As I understand the issue, these things (D & A) pose a known risk when inhaled. And the only way to truly know if it is present is to run a specific type of lab test. Seems we, vaping enthusiasts, are ruling out free market solution to the issue and seeking a quasi-regulatory approach. This approach, to me, means that it will be identified as a problem for everyone to be concerned about, even if another consumer understands the risk and is willing to live with it. That will be ignored or downplayed in favor of market (vendors) must correct the perceived problem because (segment of the) consumers demand it.

My version of what ought to happen is consumers run the tests, otherwise they will be relying on faith/credibility and hey, look where that got us so far on this issue?

I think vast majority of consumers will not run the tests citing it as too expensive, too impractical for individuals to do own testing (or access labs that test), IOW passing the buck.

I think that as FDA regulations are looming and inevitable, it may be best to let FDA be the entity that allegedly is looking out for consumer interests. Though that could be another 1 to 3 years before they do anything remotely effective. I do continue to wonder if us who are aware of this are still saying in FDA comments or otherwise, that eLiquid has no known health risks? It is hard to read the umpteen hundred other threads on ECF where people say the same old thing (eLiquid has 4 ingredients and all are GRAS) when this thread is saying something quite contradictory to that.

Having some (concerned) vapers speak for all is, for me, not the solution. I think it is likely to go in this direction, and wish it were otherwise.

If not putting onus on the individual consumer to do own testing, and not waiting for FDA to address issue with vendors, then my other suggestion would be for consumers to find a vendor type organization (such as AEMSA?) that will create the list that is desired and work as a liaison of sorts between industry and enthusiast / consumer. I do not think consumers ought to be creating that list, unless consumers can back that up with their own testing. With that said, if consumers did in fact pay for this test, then that would be example of consumers doing own testing and list ought to be created. If consumers that paid are not able to have this happen, then not sure what to say. To me, anyway we slice this issue, politics will get in the way.

Jman8, as I have mentioned before, aside from those that do care about such things, there is not going to be any consumer-lead dismantling of vendors that continue to go about business as usual. No boycott (active or passive) is likely to do irreparable damage to a business that was likely not supported by the opposition to begin with -- and if they do lose customers, I just don't see it being a large enough majority to be a death-blow. Too many vapers out there are not concerned enough about this for it to have as great of an impact as you are implying it may (in the bolded passage from your quote). There may be a time when more do care enough to make a big wave, but as long as we have vapers venturing to sub .1 Ω, DA/AP concerns will likely be just another thing in a long line of vape-behavior/vape products that some choose not to partake in.
 
Last edited:

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,050
NW Ohio US
Suddenly the vaping of sweet flavors is something that we have (significant) issue with.
(and Mr. Mann)...

Suggest being a bit more specific - since 'sweet flavors' tends to play into the FDA's hands. And it is these type of generalizations that they and the media use inappropriately to attempt to demonize all. Let's not do the same as them.

First, it is the substance, diacetyl, not the perceptual property, sweet, that has the potential for harm. Second, not all sweet flavors have the potential for harm.
 

Anjaffm

Dragon Lady
ECF Veteran
Sep 12, 2013
2,468
8,639
Germany
(and Mr. Mann)...

Suggest being a bit more specific - since 'sweet flavors' tends to play into the FDA's hands. And it is these type of generalizations that they and the media use inappropriately to attempt to demonize all. Let's not do the same as them.

First, it is the substance, diacetyl, not the perceptual property, sweet, that has the potential for harm. Second, not all sweet flavors have the potential for harm.

Absolutely :thumb:
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,272
USA midwest
Racehorse - I've seen this too. In fact, one supplier had something along the lines of: "contains less than 1% diacetyl. Diacetyl is a naturally occurring compound found in fruits" < no mention that it's associated with bronchiolitis obliterans! In fact, the way it's written makes Diacetyl sounds perfectly fine.

It was my understanding that the researchers thought that, despite no bronchioloitis obliterans that this can later show up and/or be misdiagnosed as COPD.

Either way, vaping is harm reduction method for me, and I will continue to pursue a reduction to harm for myself.

I think the word will spread very fast, and it will be quickly known that there are lots of bad apples in the vaping industry. Just as ANTZ told you there were.

PETA and others exposed abuse in the horse racing industry. It was not welcomed by fans who "wanted to sweep stuff under the rug because PETA might get hold of it and use it against us" types.

Fortunately, those of us who are passionate about our sport, and the horses, were able to love our sport but support the efforts into what's wrong with equal passion. It seems that is the only way improvements have happened. Despite that we don't like PETA.

Those who had / have high personal ethical standards and truly wanted to see improvements didn't care who the messenger was.

Investigations were made, because animals can't speak on their own behalf. And because it was the right thing to do. Secretariat's brother was found starving in a muddy Texas feedlot, on his way to the slaughterhouse. The great Ferdinand, Kentucky Derby winner of 1986 and Horse of the Year in 1987, was found in a slaughterhouse. Thankfully, there were people willing to speak for them and speak out that there were problems in their industry.

The outcome has been that a whole lot of improvements have been made for the horses, with retirement/re-careering representatives on almost every track backside. One horse I had been watching went on to become a rather talented jumper in Europe. Several others have been retrained for other careers, even working with autistic children, etc. There are databases with injuries, veterinary reports being made public, and drug testing on the athletes.

Unfortunately, some outfits had to be "embarassed" publically, or in the case of some barns, have federal investigators come in, with fines and jail time, because they just wouldn't set themselves right w/out being forced.


Self-regulation only works when those involved hold themselves to the highest standards and best practices when they see what needs to be done. Cutting corners ends up costing way more in the end.....and many have not made it to the finish line using that model.

In the end, the only people who really hindered improving the industry were not PETA members.....what hindered us was the paranoid members who kept making excuses for the bad practices. Because they didn't want PETA etc. minding our business. Those types of fans were precisely the ones that allowed bad practices to continue.

But the rest of us, we sent a message loud and clear: this crap wouldn't be tolerated. Thankfully, the most respected trainers and people in the industry agreed with us...(and indirectly, with PETA on some of the issues.)

The rest of us did not want to be part of a sport that would embarass us, we wanted to set things right so we could continue to enjoy and support the sport and horses we love.
 
Last edited:

Mr.Mann

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 30, 2011
17,401
40,572
46
All over the place
(and Mr. Mann)...

Suggest being a bit more specific - since 'sweet flavors' tends to play into the FDA's hands. And it is these type of generalizations that they and the media use inappropriately to attempt to demonize all. Let's not do the same as them.

First, it is the substance, diacetyl, not the perceptual property, sweet, that has the potential for harm. Second, not all sweet flavors have the potential for harm.

Understood, but this is a phrase that we are repeating form the preliminary reports from Dr.F. I didn't mention it in my previous post here, but initially when I read the report I did repeat it without understanding it clearly was not simply just "sweet" flavors that are this issue -- now if I repeat "sweet flavors" or "~70% of sweet flavors," that is my attempt at showing how ludicrous it is to think we can avoid "70% of sweet flavors" and still be vaping sweet flavors. While I am sure that ANTZ read my posts (maybe?), I think it is more likely that they will get all the info/propaganda they need from twisting from a source like Dr.F -- it was his language to begin with (I always said buttery/custard flavors -- and that isn't even totally true, as I see now). It will hopefully be much more specific when the study is published.

I agree though, we should just say the "~70% of the flavors tested by Dr.F contained..."

I don't think it is as easy as that. Any organization has a limited budget, thus he will examine a very small list of the huge variety of flavors available in the market. Based on what criteria will you choose the samples to be tested and then present the names of the vendors? What will other vendors say if they are not chosen to be tested?
I don't think there is any other way of controlling what is in the market besides pushing companies to test their own samples. Any other kind of testing (like our study) is done only to identify a potential problem by examining a small representative sample. Then, the solution should come through the actions of every vendor separately.

By the way, we specifically mention that we examined only sweet flavors. Thus, when we report 74% of the sampels being positive for diacetyl and/or acetyl propionyl, we refer to sweet flavors only. We expect this to be smaller when you consider other types of flavors.
 
Last edited:

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,927
Wisconsin
(and Mr. Mann)...

Suggest being a bit more specific - since 'sweet flavors' tends to play into the FDA's hands. And it is these type of generalizations that they and the media use inappropriately to attempt to demonize all. Let's not do the same as them.

First, it is the substance, diacetyl, not the perceptual property, sweet, that has the potential for harm. Second, not all sweet flavors have the potential for harm.

And IMO, this issue as it stands right now plays into the FDA's hands.

Where in this thread have we discussed the specifics (with lots of Q & A) about effects of diacetyl? Just one big generalization about perceived harm. Even our idea of solution is rather generalized.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,927
Wisconsin
First, it is the substance, diacetyl, not the perceptual property, sweet, that has the potential for harm. Second, not all sweet flavors have the potential for harm.

we specifically mention that we examined only sweet flavors. Thus, when we report 74% of the sampels being positive for diacetyl and/or acetyl propionyl, we refer to sweet flavors only. We expect this to be smaller when you consider other types of flavors.

You are correct. Not all sweet flavors, only about 74% of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread