I haven't received anything in awhile. I am sure I will soon though.
Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- diacetyl dr farsalinos
- Status
I haven't received anything in awhile. I am sure I will soon though.
I saw in another thread that the study has preliminary results.
69% of the 150+ flavors tested contained diacetyl.
It was on Vaper's Place show but that uses Flash and I don't.
Anyone have a flash-free link or a text breakdown of the results or....?
Thanks
69% of the 150+ flavors tested contained diacetyl.
It was on Vaper's Place show but that uses Flash and I don't.
Anyone have a flash-free link or a text breakdown of the results or....?
Thanks
Man, it's just far too many things to keep up with, but this is one of those things I wish I had known about (meaning the show last night)! Trying to find a replay now but so far unsuccessful.
That is the only result that has been released - that 69% contained either diacetyl or acetyl propionyl. For some reason, the results are to be published as a peer-reviewed paper - don't know what the benefit that is to vapers but....?
Based on what's been said so far, I'm not even sure that the results will be given vendor/flavor/result. It could just be a rather pointless generic overview.
Vapers Place - Show Schedule and Replays
click on "smoke free radio episode 3"
and ya I'll be ...... if it's just a generic overview This needs to ignite a flame under some vendors butts.
click on "smoke free radio episode 3"
and ya I'll be ...... if it's just a generic overview
This needs to ignite a flame under some vendors butts.
Vapers Place - Show Schedule and Replays
click on "smoke free radio episode 3"
and ya I'll be ...... if it's just a generic overview
Thanks a bundle, vangrl27!
Vapers Place - Show Schedule and Replays
click: VP Live - Smoke Free Radio Episode 3 and move over to the 1:21:30 mark.
At 1:21:30 Dimitri begins discussing his interview with Dr. Farsalino regarding the doctor's recent flavor study.
The voices:
James says:
"One of the things we need to keep in mind here is we're talking about something that's inhalable..."
Dimitri says:
"Let me start off by saying how this study got started. For those of you who don't know, Dr. Farsalino was doing a study on NETs. For people who don't know what NETs are... "
My note: It's very important to listen to the background Dimitri gives about Dr. Farsalino's older NETs study. This leads up to the discussion with Dr. Farsalino on his preliminary report of his most recent study - chemical analysis of a large sampling of today's flavored e-liquids.
Dimitri's interview with Dr. Farsalino begins at 1:23:36.
The two undesirable ingredients found in quite a few of the flavor samples are:
diacetyl and acetyl propionyl
An interesting excerpt beginning at 1:26:35
Dr. Farsalino: Now, I'm not accusing the vendors. I think there was a big mistake in the strategy. And this mistake started from 2010. The mistake was that when the issue of diacetyl came up, basically business, every vendor just asked this flavoring supplier whether the liquid, the flavorings, had diacetyl or not. And they just accepted an oral response or a phone response that, 'No, our flavorings are diacetyl free.' They didn't ever ask for proof that they are diacetyl free, which means the result [inaudible] (sounded like "is questioned.")
Dimitri: No chemical studies or... [inaudible]
Dr. Farsalino: No chemicals analysis to make sure that the liquid is diacetyl free. And I think that was the problem. It's not that the vendors knew that the liquids were containing diacetyl and they just tried to hide it. It's basically that the vendors didn't even know it."
Dimitri: And obviously the vendors didn't do the testing themselves as well...
Dr. Farsalino: Exactly.
Dimitri: ... on the flavors. They basically went on the word of the flavoring company. They didn't test it. The vendors themselves didn't test it. They began mixing, thinking they had a safe ingredient.
Dr. Farsalino: Although in my opinion I think that it's the job of the flavoring supplier to do the test. The problem is that the e-cigarette vendors are the ones who are marketing the products. So, at the end it's their responsibility towards the consumers.
click: VP Live - Smoke Free Radio Episode 3 and move over to the 1:21:30 mark.
At 1:21:30 Dimitri begins discussing his interview with Dr. Farsalino regarding the doctor's recent flavor study.
The voices:
James says:
"One of the things we need to keep in mind here is we're talking about something that's inhalable..."
Dimitri says:
"Let me start off by saying how this study got started. For those of you who don't know, Dr. Farsalino was doing a study on NETs. For people who don't know what NETs are... "
My note: It's very important to listen to the background Dimitri gives about Dr. Farsalino's older NETs study. This leads up to the discussion with Dr. Farsalino on his preliminary report of his most recent study - chemical analysis of a large sampling of today's flavored e-liquids.
Dimitri's interview with Dr. Farsalino begins at 1:23:36.
The two undesirable ingredients found in quite a few of the flavor samples are:
diacetyl and acetyl propionyl
An interesting excerpt beginning at 1:26:35
Dr. Farsalino: Now, I'm not accusing the vendors. I think there was a big mistake in the strategy. And this mistake started from 2010. The mistake was that when the issue of diacetyl came up, basically business, every vendor just asked this flavoring supplier whether the liquid, the flavorings, had diacetyl or not. And they just accepted an oral response or a phone response that, 'No, our flavorings are diacetyl free.' They didn't ever ask for proof that they are diacetyl free, which means the result [inaudible] (sounded like "is questioned.")
Dimitri: No chemical studies or... [inaudible]
Dr. Farsalino: No chemicals analysis to make sure that the liquid is diacetyl free. And I think that was the problem. It's not that the vendors knew that the liquids were containing diacetyl and they just tried to hide it. It's basically that the vendors didn't even know it."
Dimitri: And obviously the vendors didn't do the testing themselves as well...
Dr. Farsalino: Exactly.
Dimitri: ... on the flavors. They basically went on the word of the flavoring company. They didn't test it. The vendors themselves didn't test it. They began mixing, thinking they had a safe ingredient.
Dr. Farsalino: Although in my opinion I think that it's the job of the flavoring supplier to do the test. The problem is that the e-cigarette vendors are the ones who are marketing the products. So, at the end it's their responsibility towards the consumers.
I would hope the venders are getting very busy and perhaps losing some sleep, but I have my doubts.
Actually, it is good. Sweeping stuff under the rug is what isn't good.
The whole time I've complained about it (many DIYers and vapers have been trying to get information from flavor companies / eliquid mixers and it's like pulling teeth and some of them dont' even know what youre talking about). Yet I've been told that uninformed people are that way by choice.
The main point Dr. F made was that this is an entirely AVOIDABLE risk (flavorings that have inhalation risks). I started vaping as harm reduction. To me that would mean reducing entirely avoidable risks.
If you are selling to the vaping community for years w/out disclosure, that's a problem. I must say that FA and TPA have been very good at listing flavorings that are "not suitable for vaping" or have diacetyls etc. But you have no way of knowing if your vendor is mixing with certain flavors in those lines and/or using other companies.
I fully understand that a lot of people don't care, yada yada, they smoked, ecigs got them off cigs, you're gonna die anyway, yada yada yada, they just want it to taste good....and that's fine......their choice.
My point is that there are many vapers who do care and will take the trouble to avoid avoidable risks---given the choice.
Hope that's okay with everyone, because just saying that seems to engender a whole lot of backlash (i.e. that talking about it "hurts" the industry).
If people defend their "right" to vape, certainly they can include those of us who feel we have a "right" to know what we are vaping. Can't make informed decisions unless you have the information you need. I feel entitled to that information, quite frankly, since I've been paying for product.
So yeah, let's get busy. And thank you to Dr. F. though the results were somewhat humbling they are uber-useful and the study was worthy of being done. For sure, this is at least one person you know who CARES about us.
Last edited:
The backlash comes from the "do care" crowd feeling it necessary to impose their agenda on the "don't care so much" crowd, in that all vendors must now follow the protocol put forth by the "do care" crowd.
It's not a matter of "do care people" versus "don't care people."
It's a matter of science. If certain substances are determined to be "inhalation risks", then those substances have no place inside our eliquids.
If you think those who serve vapers like Dr. Farsalinos, FA or TFA/TPA have an *agenda* to impose ---- then go take it up with them.
Meanwhile, the science and technology of safer vaping will move forward as most vapers will welcome product improvements going forward.
Last edited:
The devil is in the details. The proposed FDA regulations regarding e-liquids look like they're written to favor Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and Big Government: BT, because they have so much at stake in preserving the status quo (about which I could write a whole book on short-sighted business stupidity, but that's a story for a different forum); Big Pharma because of their income stream from the patch and other nicotine replacement therapies (or at least that's the conventional thinking) and Big Government because of the tax revenues they collect from BT. Both BT and BP have lots of money to throw at lobbyists and congressmen, and BG writes the rules, so it's not surprising that the proposed rules we're seeing coming from BG look both draconian *and unfair* from a small e-liquid manufacturer or distributor point of view.
But that's the fault of the proposed implementation, not the concept, which should be to try and get ingredients that are known or potential toxins when inhaled (though not necessarily when eaten) -- like diacety -- out of e-liquids. There's nothing inherently wrong with that goal: food manufacturers have to reveai ingredients (and nutritional information, in that case), they can't use known unsafe ingredients, etc., etc. and those rules haven't put small food producers out of business. There's no reason even-handed, fair and properly written rules for e-liquids can't accomplish exactly the same thing for e-liquids, and as with food producers, do it without putting the small e-liquid manufacturers out of business and/or unreasonably running up their costs of doing business. If done correctly, properly written, fair rules could and should satisfy both Racehorse and Jman. (The rules are currently in the 75-day comment period -- let's "comment" while we can!)
If it could be done without the kind of unfair, uneven, bureaucratic, overbearing, expensive regulation that I think is likely your real issue, wouldn't you just as soon know e-liquid makers couldn't and weren't putting diacetyl in what in you're inhaling? And that you could buy from any maker and know you weren't vaping something that was likely to cause fatal lung cancer or something equally as grotesque in 10 or 20 years? I mean, if not, why did you stop analogs in favor of e-cigs? It can be done, just not with the rules as currently proposed.
Not to mention once e-cigs (which need to change their popular name to e-vapes; that move would sidestep a lot of bad publicity going forward)... er, once e-vapes can be shown to be safe in both in the short *and long* term (never mind for now possibly or probably even good for you -- maybe quite good), there is a whole, huge untapped market out there. That's the really interesting potential outcome here, and one we should be encouraging.
-Kevin
All substances, including air, have inhalation risks.
If those substances are currently in our eliquids, then I observe they actually do have a place. Whether or not you like this or strongly dislike it, is not a matter of science, but of politics.
And while this hypothetical nonsense is moving forward so will an underground market move forward that overcomes the ideology that 'it is all inherently unsafe for inhalation.' Think ANTZ, mainstream media and BP are going to one day conclude that there is such an animal as 'safe vaping products that contain nicotine?'
Somehow I'm not inclined to think the inhalation risk for air is of the same order of magnitude as the inhalation risk of, say, jatropha.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
