This is *not* an idictment of the industry. It's a "think" piece from Dr. Farsalinos and an interesting read: Is e-cigarette industry the biggest enemy of the e-cigarette today?
Is e-cigarette industry the biggest enemy of the e-cigarette today?
- Thread starter AgentAnia
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I have a tendency to sort of agree. The e-cig industry isn't a monolithic bloc, and nowhere near as organized as BT or BP, however.
That makes organized testing extremely difficult and extremely expensive when compared to any one individual company's bottom line. Comprehensive testing of an entire product line would be prohibitive.
Really, that's what the FDA is (theoretically) for. Sponsor tests, organize and present unbiased reports, and base a logical and sensible decision on things from that. Of course, the FDA is packed with pharmaceutical execs who don't follow this, and always has been.
I'm a big fan of sensible regulation--generate a list of things that are and are not allowed in e-liquids based on toxicity to the user, great. Tell me I can't have flavors because of "the children," not great.
Right now, it's a huge free-for-all out there, and that's not necessarily a good thing. If there's a chemical in somebody's e-liquid that's going to cause problems in ten years, we have no clue. If traces of diacetyl are making it into e-liquids, we have no clue.
We really need that clue.
That makes organized testing extremely difficult and extremely expensive when compared to any one individual company's bottom line. Comprehensive testing of an entire product line would be prohibitive.
Really, that's what the FDA is (theoretically) for. Sponsor tests, organize and present unbiased reports, and base a logical and sensible decision on things from that. Of course, the FDA is packed with pharmaceutical execs who don't follow this, and always has been.
I'm a big fan of sensible regulation--generate a list of things that are and are not allowed in e-liquids based on toxicity to the user, great. Tell me I can't have flavors because of "the children," not great.
Right now, it's a huge free-for-all out there, and that's not necessarily a good thing. If there's a chemical in somebody's e-liquid that's going to cause problems in ten years, we have no clue. If traces of diacetyl are making it into e-liquids, we have no clue.
We really need that clue.
Somehow the ecig industry needs to get their act together and start functioning in the same playing field as the other guys. Funding for all of the research, etc., is a major issue. The question to ask is: How do the other guys get funding? And, how do we set ourselves so we can get that funding.
As a retired vaper, I can only contribute so much. Vendors would be the next tier, but they would also be able to contribute a drop in the bucket for what is needed. The big bucks come with sponsors and from grant monies. I was hoping AEMSA would be involved with finding and conducting that kind of funding, but I haven't heard much lately about them.
Yes, vapers are a force to be reckoned with, but when fighting with the "big guns" all we are is a bunch of passionate people making some noise.
EDIT: Something that comes to mind is that the "Glantz" of this world are getting paid handsomely from smoking prevention grants through Universities. Our product is a smoking prevention/harm reduction, so why can't we tap into that source of funding?
As a retired vaper, I can only contribute so much. Vendors would be the next tier, but they would also be able to contribute a drop in the bucket for what is needed. The big bucks come with sponsors and from grant monies. I was hoping AEMSA would be involved with finding and conducting that kind of funding, but I haven't heard much lately about them.
Yes, vapers are a force to be reckoned with, but when fighting with the "big guns" all we are is a bunch of passionate people making some noise.
EDIT: Something that comes to mind is that the "Glantz" of this world are getting paid handsomely from smoking prevention grants through Universities. Our product is a smoking prevention/harm reduction, so why can't we tap into that source of funding?
Last edited:
(1)
My thought while reading Dr. F's post was: Wouldn't it be great if someone (an already existing testing lab, i.e.?) would set up an ecig testing department that could contract w/ manufacturers/vendors to test their products? The lab would be familiar w/ vaping -- e-liquid, devices, and (most importantly) HOW vapers use them. The lab would be *independent" above all. Not sure right now how this would be funded to maintain independence...
(2)
RosaJ: "As a retired vaper"... I hope this means you're a vaper and you're retired, not that you're someone who no longer vapes!
My thought while reading Dr. F's post was: Wouldn't it be great if someone (an already existing testing lab, i.e.?) would set up an ecig testing department that could contract w/ manufacturers/vendors to test their products? The lab would be familiar w/ vaping -- e-liquid, devices, and (most importantly) HOW vapers use them. The lab would be *independent" above all. Not sure right now how this would be funded to maintain independence...
(2)
RosaJ: "As a retired vaper"... I hope this means you're a vaper and you're retired, not that you're someone who no longer vapes!
(1)
My thought while reading Dr. F's post was: Wouldn't it be great if someone (an already existing testing lab, i.e.?) would set up an ecig testing department that could contract w/ manufacturers/vendors to test their products? The lab would be familiar w/ vaping -- e-liquid, devices, and (most importantly) HOW vapers use them. The lab would be *independent" above all. Not sure right now how this would be funded to maintain independence...
(2)
RosaJ: "As a retired vaper"... I hope this means you're a vaper and you're retired, not that you're someone who no longer vapes!
LOL, oh yes, I'm retired but I do still vape!
The answer to your title question is No!. The ANTZ, their junk science and the junk political science that drives it are our biggest enemy.
Any testing of eliquids should be done by objective sources or it holds no weight. We see this in the studies that are done by BT or BP. We know they're junk because the 'results' only re-enforce their predetermined intent.
It's unfortunate that because of the threat of regulation and taxes by government to grab control of industries 'for the public good', that companies think they Have to "organize" but results of that never benefit the consumer or the smaller shops or the industry as a whole. The consumers and the small shops/startups are squeezed out and the 'industry' then becomes a tool for government.
Adam Smith, from "The Wealth of Nations":
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."
This is the exact reason for the bad part of 'Big' in Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Energy, etc. and I, for one, don't want to see a Big Ecigarette.
Any testing of eliquids should be done by objective sources or it holds no weight. We see this in the studies that are done by BT or BP. We know they're junk because the 'results' only re-enforce their predetermined intent.
It's unfortunate that because of the threat of regulation and taxes by government to grab control of industries 'for the public good', that companies think they Have to "organize" but results of that never benefit the consumer or the smaller shops or the industry as a whole. The consumers and the small shops/startups are squeezed out and the 'industry' then becomes a tool for government.
Adam Smith, from "The Wealth of Nations":
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."
This is the exact reason for the bad part of 'Big' in Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Energy, etc. and I, for one, don't want to see a Big Ecigarette.
Oh my heavens!
Please tell me you are a cute little brunette / blond / redhead / brown or blue eyes female!
Anyone who can quote Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (and meets the last of the above requirements!) can make me swoon!
(NEVER thought I'd use that smilie
)If on the other (gender) hand, ... I'll simply say: you da MAN!
Spot on Kent!
Well, one thing about the e-cig 'industry' is that it gained momentum so fast that hardly enyone involved in it had time to catch a breath and take a look over one's shoulder. The invention itself may have been around for a while, but it was the tinkerers, the hobbyists, the Mom 'n pop outfits - that really got it going. The first efforts were fairly pathetic in terms of battery life and 'delivery'. It was enthusiasts that took it and took it further and put the 'ooomph' into that made it a viable alternative.
Not the biggies with their multi-million R&D budgets...
Many many indivuduals and small outfits - busy tinkering, busy peddling. Too busy keeping an eye out for the big monoliths that stoos silent and watched first amused, then with disdain, and then - as millions of LED's on batteries lit up - outright alarm. And like the eye in the big tower in 'Lord of then Rings', they didn't like waht they saw and started to throw their weight around...
Is it too late ? I don't like to think so.
Status quo can be maintained by those who benefit from it - but not indefinetly.
History books are full examples where the wheels of progress ground whole cultures into the dust.
Biology books are full of species that became extinct...
Not the biggies with their multi-million R&D budgets...
Many many indivuduals and small outfits - busy tinkering, busy peddling. Too busy keeping an eye out for the big monoliths that stoos silent and watched first amused, then with disdain, and then - as millions of LED's on batteries lit up - outright alarm. And like the eye in the big tower in 'Lord of then Rings', they didn't like waht they saw and started to throw their weight around...
Is it too late ? I don't like to think so.
Status quo can be maintained by those who benefit from it - but not indefinetly.
History books are full examples where the wheels of progress ground whole cultures into the dust.
Biology books are full of species that became extinct...
Well said.
Perhaps a consumer-based group of some sort could get a lab together, or at least get funding together to pay for an objective lab.
I'm curious too to see results from Dr. Farsalinos' liquid testing he's conducting now.
Oh my heavens!
Please tell me you are a cute little brunette / blond / redhead / brown or blue eyes female!
Anyone who can quote Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (and meets the last of the above requirements!) can make me swoon!
(NEVER thought I'd use that smilie
If on the other (gender) hand, ... I'll simply say: you da MAN!
Spot on Kent!
Lol .... Sorry... don't fit the first categories. Although I could quote the first sentence almost verbatim. I've read both the Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments by Smith.
If you don't know about it already, you might enjoy some audio on Adam Smith (and other notables) here:
Cato Home Study Course | Cato Institute
And a five part piece here:
The Other Adam Smith, Part 1 | Libertarianism.org
Okay. Nobody's picked up on my suggestion so maybe I didn't express myself well. I'm talking about a possible *new* business venture: an *independent* lab (independent of any manufacturer or vendor) who could become a specialist in analyzing the various aspects of ecigs for whoever wants to use their services. Who would have the *appropriate* equipment and objective, *informed* researchers.
Just my thought for the day.
Just my thought for the day.
I'm with you on that. However, where are we going to get the money to pay this lab?
I have always suspected the results were there at BP and/or BT - and then they were destroyed leaving no traces. BP & BT are losing millions. You just know that they have lab tested till their ears fell off and couldn't come up with enough to prove anything the government could latch onto. And they WOULD latch onto it in a nanosecond. We would have been ostracized, cooked, cut and diced by now. People laying comatose on the pavement due to the latest and most horrendous black market bad stuff would have nothing on us murderous and disgusting vapers from a media and government level.
On the other hand today's world generally consists of "he with most money to hire the best lawyers wins" and "don't compete, just kill the competition". With that being said, maybe BT and BP were just lazy and figured they could rely on their old cronies in government to do that for them with the usual assortment of financial incentives - particularly if they're developing something themselves with their own protections in place for the consumer (none).
So, your point stands.
On the other hand today's world generally consists of "he with most money to hire the best lawyers wins" and "don't compete, just kill the competition". With that being said, maybe BT and BP were just lazy and figured they could rely on their old cronies in government to do that for them with the usual assortment of financial incentives - particularly if they're developing something themselves with their own protections in place for the consumer (none).
So, your point stands.
Last edited:
Dr. Farsalinos already does much of the research together with his colleagues. Many times they've done the work for free, but they have bills to pay like the rest of us. I'm sure he can set up the protocol for an independent lab to conduct the inspections/tests.
EDIT: There's also the university in Catania, Italy. But those scientists are paid through the university.
EDIT: There's also the university in Catania, Italy. But those scientists are paid through the university.
Last edited:
Absolutely! Otherwise Glantz and his ilk would have broadcast the negative results without asserting the lies they spew.
Let me explain briefly.
I am not talking about testing all products. I am talking about defining and proposing what testings should be. This needs two things:
1. A unified e-cigarette industry
2. Protocols specifically designed to assess which tests are appropriate
After the standards are implemented within the regulation, then every producer will have to test their products in order to get approval.
FDA does not conduct any test on any product. The regulators do not do the testing. They just obtain the file with all results and information, and assess whether they comply with the regulation. The TOD specifically says that the companies are responsible for doing the tests and providing the results to them. This is happening in every single product, for pharmas, for consumer products, for everything that is regulated! If the FDA or the state was doing any tests, the whole world GDP would not be enough to cover the tests for a single category of consumer products....
Testing of products is the next step. Before that (now) is the time to address what the regulation will require. The analysis of chemicals and the toxicology tests that are currently mentioned in the TPD are just vague terms which mean nothing. There will be a negotiation on what that test will be, and what protocol will be followed. This is the most crucial process, because if they are not involved now there is a risk that the tests defined by others will be so hard that none will be able to do them.
Finding the laboratories is the last step in the process. The first step is to find consultants which will prepare the strategy, define the protocols, and then implement the testing. There should be a ccordination and cooperation between experts in the e-cigarette and nicotine field (examples: me, Etter, LeHouezec etc), laboratories and chemists-toxicologists. Everything should be oriented specifically to e-cigarette testing standards. The best toxicologist is useless by himself if he has not worked with e-cigarettes and has no understanding of the product (we had serious problems in the past due to this).
It is a multi-specialty approach. The big tobacco already has the experts (each one in his field) and they all work together in any decision. The e-cigarette industry is not expected and does not have permanent staff, so they need to find external advisors for this. But none can do it alone, they have to move all together on this.
I am not talking about testing all products. I am talking about defining and proposing what testings should be. This needs two things:
1. A unified e-cigarette industry
2. Protocols specifically designed to assess which tests are appropriate
After the standards are implemented within the regulation, then every producer will have to test their products in order to get approval.
FDA does not conduct any test on any product. The regulators do not do the testing. They just obtain the file with all results and information, and assess whether they comply with the regulation. The TOD specifically says that the companies are responsible for doing the tests and providing the results to them. This is happening in every single product, for pharmas, for consumer products, for everything that is regulated! If the FDA or the state was doing any tests, the whole world GDP would not be enough to cover the tests for a single category of consumer products....
Testing of products is the next step. Before that (now) is the time to address what the regulation will require. The analysis of chemicals and the toxicology tests that are currently mentioned in the TPD are just vague terms which mean nothing. There will be a negotiation on what that test will be, and what protocol will be followed. This is the most crucial process, because if they are not involved now there is a risk that the tests defined by others will be so hard that none will be able to do them.
Finding the laboratories is the last step in the process. The first step is to find consultants which will prepare the strategy, define the protocols, and then implement the testing. There should be a ccordination and cooperation between experts in the e-cigarette and nicotine field (examples: me, Etter, LeHouezec etc), laboratories and chemists-toxicologists. Everything should be oriented specifically to e-cigarette testing standards. The best toxicologist is useless by himself if he has not worked with e-cigarettes and has no understanding of the product (we had serious problems in the past due to this).
It is a multi-specialty approach. The big tobacco already has the experts (each one in his field) and they all work together in any decision. The e-cigarette industry is not expected and does not have permanent staff, so they need to find external advisors for this. But none can do it alone, they have to move all together on this.
Last edited:
So, what? We get a high end eliquid vendor cartel that passes the cost of regulation on to the consumers, squeezes out the small vendors, and reduces choices. Can't wait. How did we get by in the last 6-8 years without this?
I agree With Dr F. As big of a hindrance as regulation is, it is and has been inevitable. Regulation goes far beyond ingredients and product labeling/standards. The FDA has been consistent that pre market requirements/tests must be done. IMHO e cig companies have to get off their asses and get with it. It has to be much better to make your own dinner instead of a terrible cook making it for you. Most e-liquid manufacturers are doing nothing but making e-liquid. It is time for them to get organised and hire the right people/consultants and set the bar for the industry. Our letters and rallies only go so far. There is a whole facet on the FDA regs, that is on plain paper that nobody is addressing. At least AEMSA speaks about good manufacturing practices etc.... But what about testing???? It is a good point. Until this thread and Dr F's blog, I never really gave it much thought.
There are also certain messaging failures on our end. Some of those are matters of omission (i.e. the inability of small vape store owners to get orgainzed, as well as that of larger equipment/e-liquid manufacturers + distributors).
Others are rather obvious (and easily avoidable) acts of comission - affirmative blunders such as the NJOY marketing dir.'s comment last fall about "renormalizing smoking" (ugh), or certain advertising moves (VIP's recent salacious ad on British TV or Blu's ad on Sports Illustrated come to mind).
Beyond that, when politicians on our side speak, they blather general mumbo-jumbo about "big government" and "individual liberty." All fine and good, but completely non-specific. No matter what proposed legislation they oppose, they say the same thing. They're like windup toys - the arguments and speeches that they make one week against a particular proposal are verbatim copies of the case that they'll proffer the following week, against yet another idea.
The Tobacco Control Industry, on the other hand, speaks with one voice. Junk science studies and rigged pubic opinion surveys get funded, massaged into talking points, and then the talking points get sent out to eveyone in the form of e-mails, nice little power points, etc. Once they have their talking points arranged, then everyone - including their politicians - "stays on message," when supporting legislation which is carefully drafted to reflect their talking points, which are in turn based on their junk science studies and rigged opinion surveys.
It's vertically-integrated. They start with their own set of "facts" (e.g. vaping is a gateway to tobacco smoking). Then they create the "authoritative framework" for the "facts." Then they create the message. And finally they draft the legislation, craft the slogans, send out the press releases, and train their politicians. It's just one big machine, with a multitude of smoothly-running well-oiled parts that all seamlessly support one another.
Sometimes they look a little silly, like when Rep. Ray talks about "renomalizing" on the floor of the state legislature. Or see Sen Sheran's recent interview in my last news summary (3/15). All in all, I'd rather have politicians screw up talking points ... than not have any clue what they are.
One cannot garner the support of "persuadeable" decision makers with the same old boilerplate arguments about gov't interference, individual liberty, freedom vs. tyranny etc.
At some point, you have to get specific and make points that are tailored to the issue at hand. Their people do that vey well - whether they're "Tobacco Control" professionals who work in charities, for local gov'ts, national agencies, or politicians who presumably expect something in return for learning their Tobacco Control talking points, and proposing the legislation which they know the Tobacco Control Industry demands (which has in turn been designed to be supported by the junk science, etc.).
Usually on this forum we spend a lot of time talking about political philosophy, when we're not discussing science.
So I'll shut up now - on the grounds that I may be the only person who's silly enough to think that the realities of messaging actually make a difference when it comes to the outcomes of public discourse (as they manifest themselves in public policy).
Others are rather obvious (and easily avoidable) acts of comission - affirmative blunders such as the NJOY marketing dir.'s comment last fall about "renormalizing smoking" (ugh), or certain advertising moves (VIP's recent salacious ad on British TV or Blu's ad on Sports Illustrated come to mind).
Beyond that, when politicians on our side speak, they blather general mumbo-jumbo about "big government" and "individual liberty." All fine and good, but completely non-specific. No matter what proposed legislation they oppose, they say the same thing. They're like windup toys - the arguments and speeches that they make one week against a particular proposal are verbatim copies of the case that they'll proffer the following week, against yet another idea.
The Tobacco Control Industry, on the other hand, speaks with one voice. Junk science studies and rigged pubic opinion surveys get funded, massaged into talking points, and then the talking points get sent out to eveyone in the form of e-mails, nice little power points, etc. Once they have their talking points arranged, then everyone - including their politicians - "stays on message," when supporting legislation which is carefully drafted to reflect their talking points, which are in turn based on their junk science studies and rigged opinion surveys.
It's vertically-integrated. They start with their own set of "facts" (e.g. vaping is a gateway to tobacco smoking). Then they create the "authoritative framework" for the "facts." Then they create the message. And finally they draft the legislation, craft the slogans, send out the press releases, and train their politicians. It's just one big machine, with a multitude of smoothly-running well-oiled parts that all seamlessly support one another.
Sometimes they look a little silly, like when Rep. Ray talks about "renomalizing" on the floor of the state legislature. Or see Sen Sheran's recent interview in my last news summary (3/15). All in all, I'd rather have politicians screw up talking points ... than not have any clue what they are.
One cannot garner the support of "persuadeable" decision makers with the same old boilerplate arguments about gov't interference, individual liberty, freedom vs. tyranny etc.
At some point, you have to get specific and make points that are tailored to the issue at hand. Their people do that vey well - whether they're "Tobacco Control" professionals who work in charities, for local gov'ts, national agencies, or politicians who presumably expect something in return for learning their Tobacco Control talking points, and proposing the legislation which they know the Tobacco Control Industry demands (which has in turn been designed to be supported by the junk science, etc.).
Usually on this forum we spend a lot of time talking about political philosophy, when we're not discussing science.
So I'll shut up now - on the grounds that I may be the only person who's silly enough to think that the realities of messaging actually make a difference when it comes to the outcomes of public discourse (as they manifest themselves in public policy).
Last edited:
I agree with Roger. As the ANTZ have shown us, messaging is far more important than science. Perhaps it's time we learn a few tricks from our enemy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
