Hypothetically, would you commit to this? (heading toward FDA approval)

[TheIllustratedMan]

*NOTE!! I DO NOT MEAN FDA APPROVED! READ THIS BEFORE VOTING!*


Consider this scenario:

A list of regulations for liquid is drawn up to be consistent with what the FDA might be looking for regarding safety. An example might be:

• Each lot is assigned an ID number. Lot numbers are standardized to indicate date produced, facility, nicotine strength.
• Each bottle is labeled with (at a bare minimum) the lot number it came from.
• All ingredients (including those found in the flavoring) are at least listed visibly on the manufacturer's website, or shipped in a physical format with the order.
• Each formula is tested by an independent laboratory for TSNAs and toxins.
• The nicotine level of each formula is also tested to ensure that the assumed quantity is the correct quantity.
• Each formula is consistently followed to ensure that all lots are as uniform as possible.
• Random testing is done on lots periodically to check for contaminants.
• All manufacturing facilities are OSHA certified (along with any other regulations that might need to be followed).

This list is given to US manufacturers along with any who wish to gain FDA approval. Some group acts as a regulatory body to ensure that these guidelines are being adhered to, and the manufacturers who successfully meet all criteria are awarded "Approved" status. Any vendors who commit to buying their liquid exclusively from "Approved" manufacturers will also gain "Approved" status.

Now comes the question: Would you commit to buying exclusively from "Approved" vendors?

To address a major concern that might pop up here: yes, it would be expensive for manufacturers to meet these demands. Yes, that means that the liquid will be more expensive. The upside for us is that we get to keep vaping and know that our liquid is as safe as it's going to get. The upside for manufacturers/suppliers is that they have increased profits and get to stay in business.

Keep in mind that this is entirely hypothetical, just brainstorming some ideas here.

-Nate

 

[UptownRiot]

So long as my currently preferred liquid supplier was approved, and the experience (flavor, throat hit, vapor production) stayed the same. Absolutely.

Otherwise, I was born to be wild.

 

[tannerk]

Nate, could you clarify "commit"?

EDIT:

Also have you had any discussion with FDA or these guidelines are based on what-we-think-FDA-would-want?

 

[kyles0623]

I really hate the FDA for putting us through all this.

 

[Mac]

Yes 100% I would only buy from approved companies. I would tell my boss that if she wants me to keep working here only to sell approved products. I would support this wholeheartedly.

 

[UptownRiot]

I think perhaps he means would you still "fight the man" and buy through back channels/unapproved sources, or if the goveygov put this in place would you follow the letter of the law.

 

[gregg perrelli]

yes but it would have to be a more mainstreen product you could find at most tobaco stores and the price should not be more than i pay for one bottle of juice with shipping

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

As in: "I will only buy liquid from manufacturers who are following these guidelines." Since the "regulatory" body would have no real power other than handing out stickers, the plan centers on consumers only giving their business to those who have the stickers. There would still be competition (assuming more than one manufacturer met the criteria) so prices wouldn't be exorbitant, just more than we're used to. If the prices ever did fly through the roof, while other companies' stayed down, obviously take your business elsewhere to send a message that we won't put up with that kind of nonsense.

I'm rambling, but my point is that if a large portion of the customer base "look[ed] for the union label," we might stand a better chance of having some good-faith self-regulation and having the industry be taken seriously by the FDA.

Does that help?

[EDIT] No, no contact with the FDA, this is off the top of my head based on the concerns they have raised with their health alert.

[EDIT1] Also, keep in mind that this would be a voluntary system on all ends.

 

[tannerk]

From that prospective - ABSOLUTELY. Just making sure it wasn't some re-bill scheme. Plus, anyone with half-of-brain would buy "tested" liquid anyways. You'd have to be an idiot to tempt the fate with untested junk.

Idiot Disclaimer: I know we all doing it now, but it not the same given an alternative.

 

[DaBrat]

By being approved I smell a significant price hike. Not saying they would need to do anything different with their juices, kinda like buying designer shoes. That being said.... Heck yes I would want to make sure I am getting what I pay for.

 

[Flitzanu]

well, i'd take it as "being approved" could be one of two things. (not ONLY two, just a thought)

one: being approved means that the supplier is then accountable for what is being sold, and as mentioned, subject to such testing. this doesn't even mean they are changing practices, as most of the liquid we buy is MOST LIKELY just fine. so its not like the manufacturing really changes. this is, of course, not including if there would be any type of added charges by adding this accountability.

two: the added ability to say "hey we are approved" could be an inherent way to hike the price, even when nothing changed in the manufacturing process. the company could just be a bit more elitist with pricing since they have their business on the line due to possible random testing and such.

in my "non business" thought about this, we don't want to give suppliers TOO much power with the words "FDA Approved" ya know?

by all means i'm for this being approved, but i'm against someone abusing that label if their business cost does NOT rise by doing so.

 

[Zofryer]

Right now I'm committed to making my own juice, making my own mods, and buying other mods to support people selling them. The CLOSEST to anything like this I'd even consider would be an approved PG with nicotine vendor at this point. I don't want any laws or regulations that impede my ability to DIY. The hobbyist aspect of this habit is what's making it so fun for me.

 

[Angela]

I already will only buy liquid that comes in properly-labelled (ie toxic warnings, etc) with ingredients listed and with periodic lab reports being done.

To my mind (apart from the 'personal safety' aspect), these are the people who are doing everything they can to take the industry forward and keep the product on the shelves, so they deserve my pennies more than joe blogs rebottling in his kitchen and selling it as 'the safest thing since sliced bread'

So, I vote yes.... I'm already doing it!

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

Sorry I wasn't clear (updated the first post): I do not mean FDA approved. The possibility of increased manufacturing costs would be due to increased packaging requirements and testing that would be self-imposed in order to get their sticker. The companies would be accountable to a hypothetical board who could revoke that sticker at any time. The whole idea hinges on us only buying from those who have a sticker, so it's in the best interest of the companies to have one.
They couldn't be shut down, arrested, drawn-and-quartered, strung up, strung out, or any other such thing. Just lose business because we banded together to demand quality in our liquids.

 

[tannerk]

Nate - I truly applaud your efforts, but without FDA approval, what's the point? It's the same thing JC is doing already (less trivial stuff). Basically you proposing selling the labels. While anyone involved with this scheme (pricing aside) would certainly get my first consideration, it changes nothing.

 

[Taylor]

Yup, provided Drew's Nhaler, Vermont Vapor and Ecopure made the grade, which I'm certain they would.

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

What it would hopefully do is show the FDA that the industry can be responsible, self-regulate if need be, and can provide a product that is safe. I don't know for sure, but it's my understanding that synthetic nicotine eliminates the TSNA problem, and preventing contaminants is manufacturing 101. If the industry gets in line without FDA approval, it should make it that much easier to GET FDA approval (which should be the ultimate goal here, unless everyone is super-committed to going underground).
Of course, I'm operating under the assumption that SE is going to lose the court case. If they win, no worries. Just preparing for (what I see as) the inevitable crap-fest.

 

[Pharsyde]

I hate paying out my hard earned money for excessive overhead, taxes, bureaucracy, etc. Before e-cigs, I was rolling my own smokes at about 20% the cost of a store bought carton. The government takes every opportunity to squeeze every possible cent from anything related to tobacco b/c there will always be a demand. Tobacco related bureaucracy isn't about keeping the public safe (if it were, tobacco would have been banned altogether a long time ago), it is about money.

That said, I would still buy from the companies with reliable products, regardless of their ability to comply with the suggested standards. Tobacco related products will never be 100% safe, nothing is ever 100 % safe even with regulations (peanut butter, beef, dog food, birth control-btw, nitrosamines are found in condoms ). And if you live with the fear of the uncertainty, are you really living? I say, "Thank you for making me aware of the risks...but no need to charge me extra for it."

 

[tannerk]

Nate - I've traveled that road (FDA) already, and can tell you with certainty, what you are proposing is solid business plan for a start-up. Nothing more.

FDA does not care about self-regulation and "responsibility". It's that simple. Do some looking up on FDA 510(k) / 513(j) as guidelines for approval, you'll see exactly what I mean.

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

I see what you're saying, but the ultimate goal here would be to get the FDA to come to some agreement where the approval process is expedited (seeing as how there's already an industry developing), and sales would be allowed to continue provided certain benchmarks are met in that process. This isn't my idea, many others have posted those sentiments. I have no idea if it's a realistic proposal. Assuming it is, the industry needs to give the FDA reason to think that it will make those benchmarks, and this could be a good step in the right direction. Not to mention that some of the requisite tests would already be done for both approval processes.