Industry Concerns

[warbdan]

All these concerns and complaints from ex-smokers. It would be nice if everything in life was 100% safe. I'm glad my ancestors didn't think that way or I would probably be living on a pig farm in some back country in Europe. If all this testing and 10 years of research becomes required, not many will like the end result. PV's with dinky little batteries and prefilled cartridges only with 4mg of nicotine being the highest possible level. And they will all taste just like nicorette gum when it came out. Once the big pharmaceutical companies take over, that is all that will be available. And you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. There is nothing wrong with reasonable testing, but be careful what you wish for.

All we're seeking is the safest product possible. Of course it can never be 100% safe... it has nicotine in it. There just isn't any need in inhaling chemicals that aren't appropriate for inhalation. We aren't after government regulation, only some self regulation. We deserve to have the safest product possible, just as we deserve to go to a restaurant and get a hamburger that isn't raw. Please don't take this as an attempt to start an argument, I just wanted to clarify..

 

[ScottB]

Apologies in advance...

This thread - full of good ideas - is snowballing in a fairly predictable direction.

A number of cliche adages come to mind... and they're cliche because they tend to be... well... all too true.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Let the buyer beware.
It's a slippery slope.

The following is stated in exagerated form to allow brevity in making the points:

I started smoking in spite of regulatory efforts to warn me of the health dangers. Unless you're over 60, so did you. Did warning labels, tar & nicotine statements, equal time gov't advertising regs, advertising bans, et al, stop you or help you make better cigarette choices? Were there such things as better cigarette choices? Although purportedly less unjurious than smoking, can chemical vapor inhalation be benign? Ummmmmm... no. So, I want to continue in this habit, but I want reassurances that it's not "all that bad"...? Not too sure that can be rationalized. It's an extremely fine line - trying to minimize the risks associated with risky behavior.

When someone gets into retailing juice, their motivation is to make some money in a sustainable fashion - perhaps doing something they enjoy & believe in. Thier motiviation is not to poison their clientelle. That wouldn't be good for business. Mostly I'd avoid purchasing from Joes Fast Oil Change & Ejuice Emporium or similar... ...But then again, every business has to start somewhere. They can't all be well reputed right out of the gate. Standards compliance doesn't mean the product is any good. Might end up that once they remove all the "harmful" stuff from my liquid, I won't like it at all, and I'll be looking for a retailer that uses the "bad stuff". Market forces will sort themselves out... in fairly short order.

Once compliance standards have been established & statements of compliance are in place, then the system is exactly one incident away from a lawsuit challenging said compliance. Can you say "malpractice insurance" and "ridiculous costs passed along to the end user"? Defending a frivolous lawsuit isn't ultimately free. Don't lose sight that the 2 largest components of smoke prices are government taxes/regulations & BT settlement funding. A major factor in my own decision to quit smoking & start vaping was/is $$$$$.

The hardware needs to be well QC'ed and sold without contamination. This is very achievable and fairly black & white. Once I have it, if I want to vape straight Jack Daniels, or pure uncontaminated unflavored 36mg nic liquid, or the latest whacky flavored juice from Joes Fast Oil Change & Ejuice Emporium, so be it. I know it's not healthy - and I'm frankly not near well enough equipped to quibble about the degree of danger posed by certain ingredients until WELL FUNDED studies are in place - seals of association or statements of compliance in place or not... Self regulation is necessary to be sure. The degree of formalization is where the potential problems begin. Invariably, these organizations become political hornet nests, favoritism practitioners, underfunded (or overfunded - and we know what that brings...), and ego driven. Real altruism isn't a common long term human trait.

The FDA and State health organizations will be along soon enough to try and save us from ourselves... and they will pay little attention to "barely effective", "barely official" self-regulatory attempts.

Pardon the interrupton... back to solving the industry's problems... Continue thinking big. Like Margaret Mead said; "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

Just be careful what you wish for...

 

[FreakyStylie]

All we're seeking is the safest product possible. Of course it can never be 100% safe... it has nicotine in it. There just isn't any need in inhaling chemicals that aren't appropriate for inhalation. We aren't after government regulation, only some self regulation. We deserve to have the safest product possible, just as we deserve to go to a restaurant and get a hamburger that isn't raw. Please don't take this as an attempt to start an argument, I just wanted to clarify..

I like the hamburger reference. We all know that McDonald's and the like aren't exactly health food chains. At least now, after consumer advocates have stepped in, we have a more detailed view of what is in their food products and can make a more informed decision.

I like to be able to make informed decisions, and sometimes I decide to eat a Big Mac - all 576 calories and 12g of fat. Ughh.

 

[SimpleSins]

I like the hamburger reference. We all know that McDonald's and the like aren't exactly health food chains. At least now, after consumer advocates have stepped in, we have a more detailed view of what is in their food products and can make a more informed decision.

I like to be able to make informed decisions, and sometimes I decide to eat a Big Mac - all 576 calories and 12g of fat. Ughh.

Don't forget the fries. And the chocolate "milk" shake (one of their proprietary recipes is what that really is).

 

[warbdan]

You're right. It is a slippery slope. It's also one worth treading. If vendors would do the responsible thing and sort all of this out now, we could end all of these discussions. I have no doubt that most, if not all, of them believe they are doing a good thing and offering us a valuable service. Since all of this has come to light in these forums I've only seen ONE juice vendor take steps to make his product as safe as he humanly possible can. I won't name names, but i will only order from him now, because I've seen what he's done with this information. I call that being proactive and caring about customers. One of my favorite sayings is "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I truly believe this and I can't imagine what the backlash of using these chemicals in flavorings could be for these vendors if people started getting lung problems. All we can do right now is talk about it until they pay attention, so here we are.

 

[kpax]

Wow, excellent well thought out post ScottB.

This part:

Self regulation is necessary to be sure. The degree of formalization is where the potential problems begin. Invariably, these organizations become political hornet nests, favoritism practitioners, underfunded (or overfunded - and we know what that brings...), and ego driven. Real altruism isn't a common long term human trait.

Oh so true....(sigh) I work in a politically charged environment so I know.

Good point also about any future lawsuits driving costs up.....

As far as the regs go, it was something that came with the territory when I started vaping. In Sept I went into this vaping adventure with enthusiasm and ignorant bliss. Within in a few weeks there was talk of an FDA ban. Now there is the more positive talk of self regulation. We will have to see if it ends on the predictable path.

 

[FreakyStylie]

Don't forget the fries. And the chocolate "milk" shake (one of their proprietary recipes is what that really is).

McDonald's only calls them "shakes" though.

 

[rons29445]

Here is a question:
Scenario:
I want to enter the e-cig business and want to stay small so my overhead is low. So I intend to operate from my home with Internet sales business and some local sales. I find a supplier from overseas that will sell me product at decent rates where I can make some reasonable profit and compete in the market that is already saturated with Internet sellers.
I know that selling e-juice is going to be the lifeforce of the business, as buyers can only buy so much hardware and need e-juice to use the hardware with (you get my drift).

I begin to develop my own brand of e-juices in fear of the ones ordered from overseas getting seized by Customs and the FDA. Along with the hype that is being spread about the juices coming in from overseas.
And we all know American Made is much better. So I decide to make the e-juices in my home.

I follow very clean and sanitary practices and make sure my PG, VG, Nicotine and flavors are of USP quality. And that mixing is done in a area that is prepped solely for the use of mixing and packaging e-juice.

Questions:
1 - Does this violates anyone's sense of clean and sanitary? If it does, why?
2 - Can a home be made to laboratory conditions and still stay a home?
3 - Should a home be used for mixing e-juices?
4 - Is there a difference between having a storefront room for mixing or a location in a home? why?
5 - I read a thread somewhere that someone wanted the juice manufacturers to be visited by the county Health Inspector. What health guidelines would the health inspectors follow if I could even go about getting a health inspector to come to my home to inspect when it is private property and not a business location?

 

[SimpleSins]

Here is a question:
Scenario:
I want to enter the e-cig business and want to stay small so my overhead is low. So I intend to operate from my home with Internet sales business and some local sales. I find a supplier from overseas that will sell me product at decent rates where I can make some reasonable profit and compete in the market that is already saturated with Internet sellers.
I know that selling e-juice is going to be the lifeforce of the business, as buyers can only buy so much hardware and need e-juice to use the hardware with (you get my drift).

I begin to develop my own brand of e-juices in fear of the ones ordered from overseas getting seized by Customs and the FDA. Along with the hype that is being spread about the juices coming in from overseas.
And we all know American Made is much better. So I decide to make the e-juices in my home.

I follow very clean and sanitary practices and make sure my PG, VG, Nicotine and flavors are of USP quality. And that mixing is done in a area that is prepped solely for the use of mixing and packaging e-juice.

Questions:
1 - Does this violates anyone's sense of clean and sanitary? If it does, why?
2 - Can a home be made to laboratory conditions and still stay a home?
3 - Should a home be used for mixing e-juices?
4 - Is there a difference between having a storefront room for mixing or a location in a home? why?
5 - I read a thread somewhere that someone wanted the juice manufacturers to be visited by the county Health Inspector. What health guidelines would the health inspectors follow if I could even go about getting a health inspector to come to my home to inspect when it is private property and not a business location?

I'm going to respond to these kind-of randomly. If you are using your home to conduct business, it is both a private residence and a business location. At least in California, there are clearly outlined requirements as far as producing a safe consumable (which is as close as standards for vaping exist right now). They include a clean room that is used strictly for those purposes. And I think the idea of the the consumer group was to establish standards. Some may be okay with your mixing equipment going through the dishwasher; others may want it cleaned with sterilizing agents, still others might want autoclaving. I think the biggest factor in having a home-based business, at least from the standpoint of the consumer, would be who has access to the mixing room, the conditions of mixing, and the storage conditions. If there are kids and animals running in an out of the mixing room, it does not strike me as particularly sanitary. If cleaning involves wiping a container out with a paper towel, it's not particularly lung-friendly. If the nicotine content in a liquid is measured by 'eye-balling' it, it's not particularly safe. I'm not sure for every state, but I believe that depending on the nature of the business a health inspection is necessary, and they routinely do home inspections (such as for homemade baked goods, candy and the like).

 

[wv2win]

All we're seeking is the safest product possible................

In theory, I don't disagree with you. But in practice, "the safest product possible" must be defined. How it is defined and more importantly, by who, can dramatically impact your ability to vape. With most medicines you get one flavor, maybe two at most. You get one, maybe two means to take the medicine. Big Pharm companies control all of that and do it this way because it costs them much less money even though they charge you much more than it costs them to produce the product. Would you be fine with one PV and one flavor fits all? Would you be OK with vaping if it costs you 30 times more than it cost you now? What if it cost you $400 a month to vape?

Saying generically we want the safest product or that extensive testing must be done seems like a reasonable idea on the surface. I suggest it is just not that "cut and dried".

 

[FreakyStylie]

OK, that's it then. The only way to really have a watchdog group that will work (seemingly) will be one that designs an entire business plan. I don't know if that makes sense, but that's what it looks like in my head.

Kind of like what the ECA has listed. It is basically a business plan (model). What if that basic plan were to be slightly expanded and molded into what concerned consumers would expect out of a business? Is that the basic idea?

Nevermind, I'm just going to go to work on some stuff.

 

[rons29445]

My questions are hypothetical, but perhaps not.

Now I also ask how many of the present online retailers do you think are already operating out of their homes?
How would all of this newly developed regulation affect them?
How many of them already follow the safe practices that is being wished for?

 

[SimpleSins]

In theory, I don't disagree with you. But in practice, "the safest product possible" must be defined. How it is defined and more importantly, by who, can dramatically impact your ability to vape. With most medicines you get one flavor, maybe two at most. You get one, maybe two means to take the medicine. Big Pharm companies control all of that and do it this way because it costs them much less money even though they charge you much more than it costs them to produce the product. Would you be fine with one PV and one flavor fits all? Would you be OK with vaping if it costs you 30 times more than it cost you now? What if it cost you $400 a month to vape?

Saying generically we want the safest product or that extensive testing must be done seems like a reasonable idea on the surface. I suggest it is just not that "cut and dried".

I'm not exactly sure where you are coming up with these doomsday scenarios. Nobody said extensive testing need be done (although I guess that depends on how you define extensive). And if you want to use your analogy of Big Pharma, let's look at the different numbers of antibiotics- there's a flavor for everybody. Antidepressants- do you want a dessert, a tobacco, or a beverage?

I don't see how we can say with one breath that we are a safer alternative to smoking and then in the next breath say that it would be too inconvenient and/or expensive to prove that. And you can make a rather wild guess that it is going to cost 30 times what it does now, but you can't really say that. For instance, what if it only doubles it. Would I pay $20 for 30 mL of juice that I knew was made safely, that I knew that the chemicals on the pulmonary watch-list were not in my juice, and that my juice cost extra because of those things (and were verifiable independently)? You betcha. Because that's why I vape. I didn't quit smoking to save money or because I didn't like the taste or even because I didn't want to drive to town to get cigarettes. I had hoped to satisfy that "smoking" itch with a safer alternative, and if costs a little bit more to do so because my preferred vendor took the necessary steps to earn the Good Vaping Seal of Approval, then I will pay it.

 

[wv2win]

I'm going to respond to these kind-of randomly. If you are using your home to conduct business, it is both a private residence and a business location. At least in California, there are clearly outlined requirements as far as producing a safe consumable (which is as close as standards for vaping exist right now). They include a clean room that is used strictly for those purposes. And I think the idea of the the consumer group was to establish standards. Some may be okay with your mixing equipment going through the dishwasher; others may want it cleaned with sterilizing agents, still others might want autoclaving. I think the biggest factor in having a home-based business, at least from the standpoint of the consumer, would be who has access to the mixing room, the conditions of mixing, and the storage conditions. If there are kids and animals running in an out of the mixing room, it does not strike me as particularly sanitary. If cleaning involves wiping a container out with a paper towel, it's not particularly lung-friendly. If the nicotine content in a liquid is measured by 'eye-balling' it, it's not particularly safe. I'm not sure for every state, but I believe that depending on the nature of the business a health inspection is necessary, and they routinely do home inspections (such as for homemade baked goods, candy and the like).

After reading this, it could lead one to the conclusion that only a large pharmaceutical company under the close supervision of the FDA should consider starting this type of business. Unless you have very deep pockets, the ever changing, ever growing regulations would kill your business. And then if you added a store front, served coffee as a courtesy and a customer accidently spilled the coffee on their lap, you would be sued and bankrupted.

 

[SimpleSins]

My questions are hypothetical, but perhaps not.

Now I also ask how many of the present online retailers do you think are already operating out of their homes?
How would all of this newly developed regulation affect them?
How many of them already follow the safe practices that is being wished for?

It depends on which ones; for example, Dekang is coming from China factory-produced. Of the stuff produced by hand mixing here in the states, I would guess easily 90% is home-based. Of those, I doubt even 50% have standards in place which would satisfy the health department. And none of the above was about regulations per se. It was more about a consumer advocate's guide for safety standards, and recognizing those vendors that achieved it, making it easy for the consumer to decide which vendors have taken the extra steps to make their product safe.

 

[kpax]

Rons29445; Just adding to Simple Sins post. Some county health departments do not allow you to operate out of home. Some do. You could get something called a domestic kitchens license. Here is an example of Oregan's as they are apparently strict, but none of this seems prohibitive IMO.

ODA Food Safety Division Frequently asked questions (go to PDF file for Domestic kitchens application) States things like "no pets" in kitchen, etc. lol

I had a dentist that operated out of his home - He had a duplex with apartment above office and he had lab equipment, DEA licenced drugs locked up, etc.

Also just to bring things to a Farmers Markets you have to follow basic rules. SFMA's Code of Ethics

If anyone wants to check just google "farmers market bylaws" and you will see all the ones by different state and their applications.

 

[SimpleSins]

After reading this, it could lead one to the conclusion that only a large pharmaceutical company under the close supervision of the FDA should consider starting this type of business. Unless you have very deep pockets, the ever changing, ever growing regulations would kill your business. And then if you added a store front, served coffee as a courtesy and a customer accidently spilled the coffee on their lap, you would be sued and bankrupted.

The coffee thing is not really appropriate for the discussion at hand- that could happen if you ran a nail salon and served coffee, too, so trying to make it sound like an inherent danger to the vaping community is a bit specious.

And this is, at best, a consumable business. And, really, if someone cannot meet the conditions I mentioned above; i.e., the kids and dogs in the mixing room, the paper towel in lieu of actual washing, and just guessing at how much nicotine they're putting in the juice, do they really deserve to be making a product that is inhaled into someone's lungs?

 

[ScottB]

All these analogies to food-prep, laboratories, food-safe, & sterility requirements are poison to the industry.

There should be standards (tacitly self regulated) that are no more strict than tobacco product standards. Volunteering to self regulate similar to FOOD and/or DRUG companies is BEGGING to be governmentally regulated in the same way. This is "Other Tobacco Products". Not "recreational nicotine" (whovever coined that phrase needs to be shot), not McDonalds, and not Glaxo Smith Klein. This is nicotine - derived from tobacco - packaged into a liquid delivery system. Every statement, reference, inference, or notion connecting vaping to FOOD or DRUG is another peg for big government to hang their proverbial hat on. We need to stop it. We don't need to be doing the anti's work for them.

Further, we don't know what we don't know. How about someone listing the flavoring & enhancing ingredients common to eliquids that have been exhaustively tested and found to be safe, harmless, and/or otherwise "appropriate" (love that word) for inhalation along with the levels tested and the determined limits. When I see that list, I'll immediately volunteer to become head zealot for the full-disclosure cause - at my own expense. Until then, and believe me I'm no Polyanna, these things are best left to common sense & market forces. Vote with your wallet, voice your opinions, but open activism when you don't know what you don't know is just loading the oppositions' guns and then jumping directly in front of them.

 

[enree]

Obviously the health issue is mainly on the e-juice. We have become dependant on ready made recipes and at the same time worried about its content. It leads to more complex questions. Because of the potential intoxication of e-juice, how many are willing to make their own e-juice? If you are unwilling, what is the reason or reasons? When you cook your dinner with the same recipe in a restaurant, would they taste the different?

It is a very interesting subject to study, this new 'vaping culture'.

How many would consider this process a difficult experiment:
1. Buy 100mg of untreated tobacco.
2. Place it in a bottle with a small amount of water. Every part of the tobacco should be damp.
3. Seal and place it in a refrigerator.
4. Filter the liquid.
5. Take a few drops and mix it with glycerin to produce e-juice - say 15 ml bottle.
This is a low nicotine recipe - 100 percent without harmful toxin.

As I have earlier noted, it is like cooking dinner, some like to have theirs in a restaurant but would it be often?

My point is, if we are able to make our own e-juice, would it not make the e-juice producers more conscientious into making a safe product? Meaning, 'if you do not make healthy juice, I'll make my own.'

 

[wv2win]

I'm not exactly sure where you are coming up with these doomsday scenarios. Nobody said extensive testing need be done (although I guess that depends on how you define extensive). And if you want to use your analogy of Big Pharma, let's look at the different numbers of antibiotics- there's a flavor for everybody. Antidepressants- do you want a dessert, a tobacco, or a beverage?

I don't see how we can say with one breath that we are a safer alternative to smoking and then in the next breath say that it would be too inconvenient and/or expensive to prove that. And you can make a rather wild guess that it is going to cost 30 times what it does now, but you can't really say that. For instance, what if it only doubles it. Would I pay $20 for 30 mL of juice that I knew was made safely, that I knew that the chemicals on the pulmonary watch-list were not in my juice, and that my juice cost extra because of those things (and were verifiable independently)? You betcha. Because that's why I vape. I didn't quit smoking to save money or because I didn't like the taste or even because I didn't want to drive to town to get cigarettes. I had hoped to satisfy that "smoking" itch with a safer alternative, and if costs a little bit more to do so because my preferred vendor took the necessary steps to earn the Good Vaping Seal of Approval, then I will pay it.

And what does it cost to get this so-called "Good Vaping Seal"? And who determines what constitutes these requirements? And you also cannot say that it will only cost $20 to get a supposidly safer product. I run my own business and have also worked for many years in management for one of the largest companies in the world. What seems easy to the average consumer in most cases is not easy at all. All I am saying is some on here are making it sound like a "piece of cake" to make these changes and believe it will have little or no impact on those who supply us or on our ability to vape as we do now. That is naive, at best.