Flavors that may contain Diacetyl, are there really this many?

[Jonathan Tittle]

what flowerpots said, we need a list of the samples tested and we need more tested, saying that 3 out of 4 eliquids is contaminated is plain wrong because we have no idea which one has been tested. 156 samples is not a lot, there's thousands on the market. I'm grateful for the study but we need more data.

what if the samples tested are only sweets liquids, like custard, cream, ice cream, vanilla, boston cream, etc. If he can't release the vendor name, at least tell us what flavors was tested and omitting the vendor name.

In some cases, listing the name of the e-liquid/flavor would automatically "out" the vendor. Now, for those that know and hide it, shame on them, but for those that honestly don't know, imagine the uproar? I'm not saying vendors should be protected. If we screw up, we should take the blame and do what is needed to make it right, though keep in mind, short of independent testing by the vendor, most vendors are going based on what their [flavor] vendors tell them.

Some flavor vendors are honest and upfront (FlavourArt & TFA to name two) about what's in and not in their flavoring, others are not as upfront or hide behind the limitations and not having to disclose if it's below certain levels (what FlavorWest was doing).


I'll use an example, a popular one at that. Let's say they tested Suicide Bunny Mothers Milk and it has Acteoin & Acetyl Proprionyl in it (this is a *what if* scenario - I am NOT saying it does - but it's a popular e-liquid that pretty much everyone knows by name), not only is the creator going to get hit, but so are the hundreds of shops that carry it. They could just say Mothers Milk and by process of elimination, you already know what e-liquid they are talking about. So in disclosing that one name, you are putting a huge burden on every single shop that carries it because you can't honestly think that just the creator is going to get questions....The shops will get flogged as well and they are just the buyer/reseller, so off they go to shoot off e-mails/phone calls to the creator.

It can be a sticky situation there. That's probably why only what is in the report is, well, in the report. He may have shared the more detailed results with the vendors themselves, thus allowing them to rectify or handle the issue with a little more ease.

 

[GaryInTexas]

I would think priority should be for those that vape the flavors over the ones that sell the flavors. At this time, this reports does not provide any more info than what we already had.

 

[WharfRat1976]

Some of you don't seem to get the point.......that being that if a customer orders a juice, and that customer prefers not to vape diacetyls, and is told that the juice does NOT have diacetyls, but it actually does, then the customer is not receiving what they thought they were purchasing.

I believe it is important to identify diacetyls, acetoins, etc. because customers should be able to purchase, in the free market, what they want. And they can't do that if there is no disclosure.

This is not about regulation...it's about disclosure.

It's no different than buying gluten free or salt free or aspartame free products......and then finding out that isn't true about the foodstuff you purchased.

there ARE vapers who have allergies to PG, or to Splenda, and they ask their vendor/mixer if their ejuice has these things. Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to ask about, same thing with diacetyls, acetoins, etc.

I don't care, or want to specify or control what YOU vape. But I do want the freedom to not vape high PG or liquids with diacetyls, or liquids with food dyes.......and I can't do that if my vendor won't or can't disclose!

I think if you are selling a product and making claims on the ingredients, you should know the ingredients.

I think I "get the point." If 159 samples showed higher levels of AP and DA then suggested by NIOSH, rest assured, many of the precious commercial juices and flavorings we so love and vape contain these levels of AP and DA. 118 of the samples contained these levels. ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN! I do not need to know specific juices and or flavorings to know I am currently vaping these levels of AP and DA. The odds are that I am. Yes, in the grand scheme of the thousands of flavors available it is not a big number however, I doubt they tested the more esoteric, "non-popular" flavors and juices. That would tend to divert the "purpose" of the study......

The irony is this was funded by CASSA, I'm assuming, as a way to keep out the FDA from coming into the vape business? On one hand I understand that the Vape community is trying to make it safer to keep regulation out while showing how concerned we are and funding "science." On the other hand, the FED can use a study like this as ammo to justify the need for regulation. Maybe someone can help with these thoughts? My opinion is that the FED can come in on the nicotine/childproof issue alone. Stack this on top of that and...wow.

 

[Mowgli]

It was crowdfunded. Not by CASAA.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/...is-evaluating-potentially-harmful-ingredients


Here's my opinion quoted from another thread -

I think that poster .pdf they released only shows the highlights of what'll be reported in the journal.
I'd guess that they won't report specific juices by specific vendors but it'll have considerably more detailed info.
I suspect the Dr. will alert manufacturers to tell them what specific juices contain what amounts.
I hope the vendors will do something about it at that time.
Whether they report the level that the study found each specific juice or only which are totally diketone-free is up to them.

The amounts shown in the study report averages.
Some might be considerably less and some could have hazardous levels.

Like you, I expect to get what is advertised. I believe in total transparency (without giving away detailed recipes).
I'll decide what level is acceptable risk for me, not the FDA or Glantz's minions.
I can only make rational informed choices if I have real information to evaluate.

I think what would be fair is manufacturers are alerted to the amounts found, given a month or so to adjust their juice and/or flavoring (or not) and report changes on their websites, then the Dr. releases the study's detailed results.

or something..

 

[Mowgli]

Here's the nitty gritty from the Idiegogo page:

A recent study performed by Dr Farsalinos revealed the presence of some potentially harmful-to-inhale ingredients in electronic cigarette liquids. In order to define the magnitude of the problem and provide the solution for the safety of all vapers, we decided to organize this fund-raising campaign and obtain as many e-liquid samples as possible that will be tested in an experienced and highly-specialized laboratory.

What We Need & What You Get

•Our goal is to test more than 100 e-cigarette liquids from manufacturers all over the world. Funds are needed for the cost of obtaining all e-liquids that need to be tested and (mostly) for covering the costs of the specialized laboratory which will perform the analysis.
•The liquids and flavorings tested are extremely popular, therefore this research concerns all the vaping community as well as the industry.
•THE MORE FUNDS WE RAISE, THE MORE LIQUIDS WILL BE TESTED. This will allow us to define the extent of the problem as accurately as possible and will provide a definite solution.
• We believe this research will provide crucial information and will induce necessary changes in the electronic cigarette market to make the products as safe as they can possibly be.

•The issue that will be studied is absolutely AVOIDABLE. These are ingredients that should definitely be avoided and can be easily removed. There is a method to make sure that they will not ever be present in e-cigarette liquids.
•This research will be the perfect opportunity for the INDUSTRY to show its responsibility towards health-related issues. They should also SUPPORT this research project.
•Vapers will be reassured about the quality and safety of e-cigarette liquids available in the market.
•Unfortunately there are no gifts that we can give. Detailed information and proper scientific research is all we can offer.
•The study and all details will be published in an international medical journal.

The Impact

•THIS IS A HEALTH-RELATED ISSUE.
•The problem is complex, because the vast majority of e-liquid manufacturers and suppliers are NOT aware that these chemicals are present in their liquids (or, even worse, they have been falsely informed that they are not present).
•This research will contribute to making e-cigarette liquids safer.
•Dr Farsalinos and his research team are renowned for their efforts and contributions to electronic cigarette research.
•E-cigarette liquids will only become BETTER and SAFER after this research project is concluded

 

[WharfRat1976]

Mowgli, I assume your preference would be not to vape AP and DA at any level?

Are you aware of any other possible potential toxic bi-products that maybe contained in flavorings?

Thanks for posting all of the information.

 

[Mowgli]

Mowgli, I assume your preference would be not to vape AP and DA at any level?

Are you aware of any other possible potential toxic bi-products that maybe contained in flavorings?

Thanks for posting all of the information.

I'd rather not vape any but the poster already shows way lower average levels than smoking.
I'd like to know how much is in different companys' juices.
I like FW & MBV's (not the same) Butterscotch and Nicoticket CLS and will continue to vape them.
I'd like to know how much is in every flavor so I can adjust my usage.
I vape over 2 dozen flavors of different profiles so I'm not ODing on any particular one.
I believe in making my own informed decisions to reach my own comfortable level of risk.

I don't know about any other chemicals of concern.

 

[vangrl27]

In some cases, listing the name of the e-liquid/flavor would automatically "out" the vendor. Now, for those that know and hide it, shame on them, but for those that honestly don't know, imagine the uproar? I'm not saying vendors should be protected. If we screw up, we should take the blame and do what is needed to make it right, though keep in mind, short of independent testing by the vendor, most vendors are going based on what their [flavor] vendors tell them.

Some flavor vendors are honest and upfront (FlavourArt & TFA to name two) about what's in and not in their flavoring, others are not as upfront or hide behind the limitations and not having to disclose if it's below certain levels (what FlavorWest was doing).


I'll use an example, a popular one at that. Let's say they tested Suicide Bunny Mothers Milk and it has Acteoin & Acetyl Proprionyl in it (this is a *what if* scenario - I am NOT saying it does - but it's a popular e-liquid that pretty much everyone knows by name), not only is the creator going to get hit, but so are the hundreds of shops that carry it. They could just say Mothers Milk and by process of elimination, you already know what e-liquid they are talking about. So in disclosing that one name, you are putting a huge burden on every single shop that carries it because you can't honestly think that just the creator is going to get questions....The shops will get flogged as well and they are just the buyer/reseller, so off they go to shoot off e-mails/phone calls to the creator.

It can be a sticky situation there. That's probably why only what is in the report is, well, in the report. He may have shared the more detailed results with the vendors themselves, thus allowing them to rectify or handle the issue with a little more ease.

Sorry but so what? If brands and flavours were disclosed, many may continue to still buy it, but those that are buying under the assumption that it's AA&D free should be notified that it's not.

Just not feeling sorry for the vendors or the resellers for the inconvenience it may cause them, consumers have a right to know.

By not disclosing anything vendors won't feel any heat at all and will continue on with exactly what they're doing. It's not like every vendor out there doesn't already know it's a possibility that AA&D is in their juices, and by the results of this report it's pretty obvious vendors haven't taken the effort to test and find out for themselves, this report isn't going to change that.

 

[Jonathan Tittle]

Sorry but so what? If brands and flavours were disclosed, many may continue to still buy it, but those that are buying under the assumption that it's AA&D free should be notified that it's not.

Just not feeling sorry for the vendors or the resellers for the inconvenience it may cause them, consumers have a right to know.

By not disclosing anything vendors won't feel any heat at all and will continue on with exactly what they're doing. It's not like every vendor out there doesn't already know it's a possibility that AA&D is in their juices, and by the looks of the results of this report it's pretty obvious vendors haven't taken the effort to test and find out for themselves, this report isn't going to change that.

Unless a vendor is openly stating that e-liquid X is D-A-AP free, consumers shouldn't make the assumption. Yes, consumers have a right to know what is known, though the same could be said about vendors buying from manufacturers as they too are consumers. E-Liquid Vendors simply fall into the middleman category since they are between the vendor selling the flavoring and the consumer buying the end product produced from the flavoring.

We live in a world that is closely guarded by trade secrets, and those trade secrets are worth their weight in gold to businesses. We also live in a country (for those of us in the USA) where certain thresholds do not have to be reported and many companies have zero legal liability to report a chemical or trace it if they do fall below such thresholds. From speaking with Linda (TPA/TFA), their manufacturer was resistant to give them the information they've provided us with thus far. They got it, but that doesn't mean every manufacturer is going to do the same.

I don't expect you to feel sorry for vendors or their resellers, I'm simply pointing out that outing a company in such a format can be detrimental and would honestly do more harm upfront, and cause more arguments and bickering (which we don't need right now) than if they were to simply get in touch with those who tested positively above the provided limits. A well written e-mail or well written letter informing them of the findings and what they can do about it would do wonders. If they are non-responsive after a period, then sure, perhaps they don't care and those results should be publicized, but I see no reason to turn it into a fiasco when it could be handled in a calm, collected manor.

In general, people are more willing to cooperate when you approach them calmly instead openly blasting them. That's when they go on the defense and that's why things heat up.

 

[GaryInTexas]

Did the vendors the flavors were purchased from advertise their product as Diacetyl free? If so then they do not deserve protection. They should know this. Diacetyl issues have been know for years now.

 

[vangrl27]

Unless a vendor is openly stating that e-liquid X is D-A-AP free, consumers shouldn't make the assumption. Yes, consumers have a right to know what is known, though the same could be said about vendors buying from manufacturers as they too are consumers. E-Liquid Vendors simply fall into the middleman category since they are between the vendor selling the flavoring and the consumer buying the end product produced from the flavoring.

We live in a world that is closely guarded by trade secrets, and those trade secrets are worth their weight in gold to businesses. We also live in a country (for those of us in the USA) where certain thresholds do not have to be reported and many companies have zero legal liability to report a chemical or trace it if they do fall below such thresholds. From speaking with Linda (TPA/TFA), their manufacturer was resistant to give them the information they've provided us with thus far. They got it, but that doesn't mean every manufacturer is going to do the same.

I don't expect you to feel sorry for vendors or their resellers, I'm simply pointing out that outing a company in such a format can be detrimental and would honestly do more harm upfront, and cause more arguments and bickering (which we don't need right now) than if they were to simply get in touch with those who tested positively above the provided limits. A well written e-mail or well written letter informing them of the findings and what they can do about it would do wonders. If they are non-responsive after a period, then sure, perhaps they don't care and those results should be publicized, but I see no reason to turn it into a fiasco when it could be handled in a calm, collected manor.

In general, people are more willing to cooperate when you approach them calmly instead openly blasting them. That's when they go on the defense and that's why things heat up.

You make some good points. That below 1% diacetyl is considered ND being one. And a part of me realizes (since my last post) that pointing out 100 vendors when one can assume that 70% of thousands of vendors may be just as guilty, may not be fair.

But I just don't have as mush trust as you do that a simple letter from the DR will have them change what they are doing. And I think that if there is at least some concrete info out there then consumers have a right to know. If they had no intention of releasing vendor names then they really should have just tested flavour concentrates, that would have helped all vendors out, and in turn consumers.

Take 20 of the creamiest flavours from the 8 most popular flavour venders and post the results from those.

 

[Jonathan Tittle]

You make some good points. That below 1% diacetyl is considered ND being one. And a part of me realizes (since my last post) that pointing out 100 vendors when one can assume that 70% of thousands of vendors may be just as guilty, may not be fair.

But I just don't have as mush trust as you do that a simple letter from the DR will have them change what they are doing. And I think that if there is at least some concrete info out there then consumers have a right to know. If they had no intention of releasing vendor names then they really should have just tested flavour concentrates, that would have helped all vendors out, and in turn consumers.

Take 20 of the creamiest flavours from the 8 most popular flavour venders and post the results from those.

I think that most vendors that have been on the market for years and those who have been on the market for just a short while are aware of who he is and what he's doing. If they don't, they aren't paying close enough attention to what is going on in the industry, IMO. That, or they just don't take the time to inform themselves. Either could be the case.

For those that know of him, are aware of the project and for those who even donated to it, they really have no excuse. For those that receive a letter (if that happens), it'd be as simple as modifying your product page for each e-liquid and stating "This product is / is not known to contain D-A-AP (or any combination of them)." That would honestly be sufficient. That makes it known and the consumer can make a choice from there. If you really want to get specific, say something to the effect of "This e-liquid contains flavoring that is known to contain D-A-AP (or any combination thereof) amounting to X% of the total flavoring in the final product." That at least gives them an idea of how much "could" be in there without giving away specifics that could lead to flavor deciphering.

That's as simple as it gets. I don't think any vendor should have an issue with that simple statement.

 

[vangrl27]

I think that most vendors that have been on the market for years and those who have been on the market for just a short while are aware of who he is and what he's doing. If they don't, they aren't paying close enough attention to what is going on in the industry, IMO. That, or they just don't take the time to inform themselves. Either could be the case.

For those that know of him, are aware of the project and for those who even donated to it, they really have no excuse. For those that receive a letter (if that happens), it'd be as simple as modifying your product page for each e-liquid and stating "This product is / is not known to contain D-A-AP (or any combination of them)." That would honestly be sufficient. That makes it known and the consumer can make a choice from there. If you really want to get specific, say something to the effect of "This e-liquid contains flavoring that is known to contain D-A-AP (or any combination thereof) amounting to X% of the total flavoring in the final product." That at least gives them an idea of how much "could" be in there without giving away specifics that could lead to flavor deciphering.

That's as simple as it gets. I don't think any vendor should have an issue with that simple statement.

that is simple! and I agree that just disclosing it would be adequate.

I was thinking that a letter from the DR would be more along the lines of "this doesn't have to be in your e-juice, I think you should change the flavours", challenging e-juice makers to change their recipies ....being that is the message that he seems to be pushing

 

[WharfRat1976]

that is simple! and I agree that just disclosing it would be adequate.

I was thinking that a letter from the DR would be more along the lines of "this doesn't have to be in your e-juice, I think you should change the flavours", challenging e-juice makers to change their recipies ....being that is the message that he seems to be pushing

Great, they get a "letter" and it goes in the trash. Every time someone calls out a vendor to "out themselves" and/or to provide clarification to the public online or wherever, it's an invitation for the FED to come in and regulate.

Vapors seem to want their cake and to eat is as well. Industries cannot and do not self regulate. Industry that has impact on public health are no different. Look up the fiasco that ensued when milk was invented. There are thousands of examples like this. Vapors here want "regulation" but they really do not want the "regulation" that is required and would work. How can we have it both ways?

 

[GaryInTexas]

No I don't want regulations. As in every other thing regulated by our government, it starts off innocent enough and quickly grows into control and taxation of every segment involved in the activity. I don't expect this industry to self regulate. I want crowd sourced flavor testing to continue and vendors continuing to mislead the public would be driven out of business by the customer base very quickly. No government involvement required or wanted. That is all based upon us, the customers, are actually informed of the flavor companies involved.

 

[Racehorse]

I am actually mid-conversation with them and I haven't received a straight answer as of yet

Re: Inawera

A *conversation* shouldn't be necessary.

Just ask for their sheets containing "test results" on each of their flavors, or a link to them in .pdf

(If these do not exist then then close the convo. All you're getting empty promises, claims, and what-not. )

I am 100% ethically against false claims being made about a product.

 

[Racehorse]

the FED can use a study like this as ammo to justify the need for regulation. Maybe someone can help with these thoughts?

The study was done by a scientist, who is also pro-vaping. Obviously, a very ethical scientist, since the outcome was not entirely complimentary to most of the eliquids tested.

This is the difference between propaganda and science.

True scientific inquiry seeks truth. It does not have an opinion about who will benefit or not benefit from the outcome or results. it does not target a specific result when undertaken initially. It does not seek an outcome only beneficial to the beliefs of it's researcher.

Unfortunately, not enough people think this way. I do not have an explanation for that, maybe you do.

It is unfortunate that people can't even tell anymore when they're actually being *helped*, with no alterior motive. Sad state of affairs.



I must admit that it is all a very black and white issue for me.
"do your liquids contain AP, DA, etc"

"yes, no, I don't know."

Is anything more required? Yes means yes, no means no, and I don't know means they are clueless but at least trying to be honest.

I absolutely have a right to know the answer to this question, from everyone who makes something that will be inhaled into my lungs and that I pay for. I'm not asking them about safety, or to make a scientific or biological treatise about it. I just want, yes, no, I don't know.

 

[Leaded50]

Re: Inawera

A *conversation* shouldn't be necessary.

Just ask for their sheets containing "test results" on each of their flavors, or a link to them in .pdf

(If these do not exist then then close the convo. All you're getting empty promises, claims, and what-not. )

I am 100% ethically against false claims being made about a product.

Inawera has also a pdf that state their MSDS , and ingredients are following the EC regulations, and they too as most others,are giving the result after what regulations says they have to do. Its rather the claims in the regulations thats not specified enough.......All producers of ingredients, aroma, pg or vg, or other stuff is following todays rules in regulations by law, they are tetsted against theese regulations. But for now , the vapers are claiming more specified regulation on theese rules,than the regulation directives itself...

 

[Racehorse]

Inawera has also a pdf that state their MSDS

I looked at those, they were not tests on the flavoring for presence of DA, AP, etc.

Look at this. They call it a certificate of quality. Tell me how this shows what is in the flavoring:
http://inawerashop.com/images/certyfikates/2DF/2DF_0.pdf

This looks like jimmied up documents that really show.......nothing. Explain to me how anything in this document supports that their flavoring is AP and DA free........

Maybe I'm not looking at the right stuff. If they say there are no diacetyls, I need to see that. Not hear about it. Where is the proof?

 

[vangrl27]

I looked at those, they were not tests on the flavoring for presence of DA, AP, etc.

Look at this. They call it a certificate of quality. Tell me how this shows what is in the flavoring:
http://inawerashop.com/images/certyfikates/2DF/2DF_0.pdf

This looks like jimmied up documents that really show.......nothing. Explain to me how anything in this document supports that their flavoring is AP and DA free........

Maybe I'm not looking at the right stuff. If they say there are no diacetyls, I need to see that. Not hear about it. Where is the proof?

Surely if small companies in Canada can pay for testing, these much, much larger companies can afford to. It's not that expensive to test for AA&D, especially when you send in a large batch for testing.

Below is a quote from a company that sells e-juice, they don't make the juice themselves but rather resell juices made from other juice manufacturers. They belong to an organization called ECTA, I think there are maybe 10 members (all retailers) and they all follow the same rules as this company, meaning they all have to test a minimum of 3 juices every 6 months. Some of them sell the same brands/flavours so they can share the info they receive on certain juices.

"We are not a liquid manufacturer, however a requirement of ECTA is to share the testing. As an E-cig shop we send in our share, 3 liquids for testing every 6 months. Our testing results have shown to be on track to Dr F's findings! You can take a look here: Vapemate E-Liquid Testing for Consumer Safety in Canada "