Eliquid approval

[StratOvation]

What level of safety are we seeking?

IMO, "Completely Safe" e-liquid is an impossible pipe dream.

What criteria should be used to determine when an acceptable level of Safety has been attained?

Is it responsible of anyone to publicly classify a manufacturers e-liquid as being safe and compliant with the chosen criteria?

Is "Random, Off the shelf sampling" going to yield a representative sample
of the particular manufacturers e-liquid safety profile?

If we are honest with ourselves and try to look at this desire for safe liquid objectively...
We will realize this industry was not developed to yield a "Safe Product" rather a "Safer Alternative" to tobacco. With it's market acceptance based on a logical comparison between the safety of their product vs. that of tobacco.

The investors have spent their money on what they felt were the critical developmental steps, sourced their raw materials, built their factories, developed their distribution chains, marketing plans and projected their growth potential all based on the intent of realizing a profit by selling a "Safer" product, NOT a Safe product.
Is it realistic for us, as their consumers to expect (Or demand) they now double or triple their original investments and time, simply to provide us with a warm fuzzy feeling when using their products? What is their incentive? They are realizing their profits today. What bargaining tools do we have that would incite a retooling of the entire industry? Are their future profits at risk if they fail to comply with our requests/demands? certainly, a portion is, but is it enough?

 

[katink]

Perhaps there would be a broad acceptance of the following scenario:

- RTV starts and continues to ask (with great perseverance and urge) all manufacturers of both liquids and devices to do all that is nesseccary to be deemed as 'acceptably safe' by both users and other-then-china governments;

- More or less the same is done with suppliers further down the supply-chain. They too must be asked and urged to do all they can to get their manufacturer to comply (and if need be change manufacturer to one that does comply on the first point); also anything they might do/add/subtract themselves is to be captured this way;

- As to getting needed tests done: keep it at a watch-dog level. From both manufacturers and suppliers, mystery-buy liquids and devices at certain intervals, and get them tested to see if they contain exactly that what supplier or manufacturer say they contain (and no more or less then that). Each supplier and manufacturer gets a label showing how many batches/devices have been tested from this company; and how many of those tests came out truthful to what the company had stated/listed about it.
This does give a level of 'trustworthiness' as to given supplier or manufacturer, that I think is useful to the customer (of course information would be available what was wrong with 'non-complying tests' also).

Meanwhile, all concerned can study and follow any developments concerning any (constituants of) liquid and devices, and pass on to (and learn from) the community whatever of importance is found (so this field is not linked to this or that supplier or manufacturer; but to the device or the (substance in) liquid. Of course the next step then can be to list which known suppliers/manufacturers are selling items/liquid with these concerns (or on a positive note with these plusses, also possible) and keep such lists updated.



I think, myself, that this might be a way of doing things that can meet a broad acceptance from all party's involved; yet still be well worthwhile as to results that could be reached doing it this way?

 

[StratOvation]

If each country had it's own Validating distribution center with ready access to an independant and reputable lab, you may be able to provide some assurances of relative safety for all "tested" e-liquid that bears the Validation seal.

For example DeKang agrees to route all shipments to UK through this Validation center funded by fees paid by DeKang (based on volume of containers or something).

Shipments are received, representative samples are withdrawn and submitted for testing, upon receipt of a passing safety profile and nicotine efficacy test result, containers are sealed with a tamper evident validation seal and forwarded to the UK distributor for sale.

Any shipments that fail testing are returned at DeKangs expense.

DeKang is now a "Validated" UK supplier and all DeKang containers bearing the controlled seal will provide an elevated level of safety assurance and likely yield a higher market value.

Just thinking out loud...obviously, there would be many pros and cons to consider

 

[StratOvation]

Perhaps there would be a broad acceptance of the following scenario:

- RTV starts and continues to ask (with great perseverance and urge) all manufacturers of both liquids and devices to do all that is nesseccary to be deemed as 'acceptably safe' by both users and other-then-china governments;

- More or less the same is done with suppliers further down the supply-chain. They too must be asked and urged to do all they can to get their manufacturer to comply (and if need be change manufacturer to one that does comply on the first point); also anything they might do/add/subtract themselves is to be captured this way;

Captured? Not sure what your implying here Kat..please explain

- As to getting needed tests done: keep it at a watch-dog level. From both manufacturers and suppliers, mystery-buy liquids and devices at certain intervals, and get them tested to see if they contain exactly that what supplier or manufacturer say they contain (and no more or less then that).

A potential sticking point, as most manufacturers would be hesitant to divulge all their propriatary flavoring ingredients. A Signed secrecy agreement may be a work around.

Each supplier and manufacturer gets a label showing how many batches/devices have been tested from this company; and how many of those tests came out truthful to what the company had stated/listed about it.
This does give a level of 'trustworthiness' as to given supplier or manufacturer, that I think is useful to the customer (of course information would be available what was wrong with 'non-complying tests' also).

Meanwhile, all concerned can study and follow any developments concerning any (constituants of) liquid and devices, and pass on to (and learn from) the community whatever of importance is found (so this field is not linked to this or that supplier or manufacturer; but to the device or the (substance in) liquid. Of course the next step then can be to list which known suppliers/manufacturers are selling items/liquid with these concerns (or on a positive note with these plusses, also possible) and keep such lists updated.



I think, myself, that this might be a way of doing things that can meet a broad acceptance from all party's involved; yet still be well worthwhile as to results that could be reached doing it this way?

So, basically a website database of test results? Your idea carries some potentail merit. But the random method of obtaining samples doesn't necessarily indicate trustworthiness, could just be that they got it right on the batch we happened to sample.
I also wonder if we would see less "Broad Acceptance" and more Legal battles once the "Failed Batch" data is posted online. might be better to simply state that a container failed to meet the criteria.

Mike

 

[katink]

Captured into our knowledge - became clear. Guess I was translating in a difficult way, sorry.
And this is just and only about the part of RTV that wants to test products; lots of other things beside this that are also on RTV's radar; so RTV would certainly not become a 'database site' though it might have some databases.

 

[Lithium1330]

Something we can do is follow manufacturers doing tests, i.e. Ecopure, they claim they are producing in the UK and tested by a university or something like that, on a manufacturer's website they had a poll asking if the consumer would pay more for an e-liquid produced and tested in the UK, lets investigate this effords, lets ask, lets see, lets validate as a community their efford and if we see after our research that they are doing a good thing, lets support them, lets promote them and lets inform the rest of consumer what this manufacturer is doing, the same can applie to TW lets investigate and ask, lets deman proof, lets do whatever we can to find answers, everybody can do something, if we agree to do the same thing at the time, our collaborative efford is bigger.

Everybody can join RtV, everybody can be a volunteer, and we as small as we are, have had very good discusions on difficutl topics and we have became to conclusions as a community, but we need more people willing to collaborate in a POSITIVE way.