Is the whole scandal with da and ap overblown? Some numbers inside
- Thread starter Vapey_McVape
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Pretend I inserted your favorite "Implied Facepalm" image here.
I sure wish you @Trayce had a clue what you are asking.
Some single flavorings/juices like a strawberry for instance can use numerous chemicals/flavor molecules in them. So imagine if you will - how huge the label needs to be if they list them all?? We'd need to buy 120ml to even be able to read it. And the other thing is even if for now you think only about the 4 known of as maybe causing harm - they will add more as time goes by so everyone who either makes the flavorings or the juice would need to keep changing labels to show this - really??!!
Am I the only 1 that sees this as happening?
Some single flavorings/juices like a strawberry for instance can use numerous chemicals/flavor molecules in them. So imagine if you will - how huge the label needs to be if they list them all?? We'd need to buy 120ml to even be able to read it. And the other thing is even if for now you think only about the 4 known of as maybe causing harm - they will add more as time goes by so everyone who either makes the flavorings or the juice would need to keep changing labels to show this - really??!! Am I the only 1 that sees this as happening?
With all our fellow vapers crying wolf all the time,no wonder.
Vitamins and supplements are in a odd position. They were lumped in with with all sorts of stuff that
claimed all sorts of health and medical benefits. Most notably diet pills and silver bracelets,stuff like
that. Prior to the restrictions on health claims a vitamin maker might of said helps prevent this,that and,
the other thing. Now they say this helps support this that and the other thing. They can say this because
its true and, the government has said its true via their recommended nutritional requirements guide lines.
This is the reason e-cigs can not state any health or medical related benefits. They have to either
spend literally tens of millions of dollars for research or, go by what the government has stated is
beneficial for ones health.
If you have noticed the FDA is playing for both sides on these issues. If they find vaping is the least
bit harmful,real or imagined,they got us. On the other hand if they determine there are actual health
benefits, they still got us. They have learned their lesson fighting the battle of that other stuff thats
now legal in a couple of states.
Regards
Mike
Don't you think it odd that the powers that be haven't dropped a cartoon
size anvil on top of their heads. Of course it has been asserted by the
pro-smoker side back in the pre-ban days that tobacco has these qualities
more or less. I don't fully recall but,there may be some scientific study's
pertaining to this. Those were for tobacco though. ER,wait, e-juice and
hardware are going to be deemed a tobacco product.
They may be ahead of the curve here.
Regards
Mike
Who, exactly, has the Legal Authority to drop said Anvils on a Company like that?
And under what Legal Statute would they use?
The FTC for one. Their the one that sent out the cease and desist letters
to vendors making e-cig health claims I believe. If it was not them its what
ever Federal Agency did. It was posted somewhere on these forums.
The FDA could claiming as a consumer product you can't make unsubstantiated
health claims.
Regards
Mike
PS. IT might be just the FTC that handles the advertising restrictions.
Maybe I Misunderstood your Anvil Dropping?
Are we wanting to Drop an Anvil on the for what they Put in their e-Liquids?
Or are we wanting to Drop an Anvil on them for what they Claim that what they Put in their e-Liquids does?
I was speaking in the metaphorical sense. Why hasn't or why isn't the government addressing this vendor.
The therapeutic claims certainly should be under the scrutiny of th government.
Johnson Creek and Provari certainly can't make such claims.
Regards
Mike
OK... So it sounds like the issue is what they are saying. What "Therapeutic Claims" are they making?
You did Notice that there is a Asterisk after about everything the say.
*This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
APPETITE SUPPRESSANT-ENERGY BOOSTER-SLEEP AID.
They still have to prove that despite the disclaimer.
Smoking has long been attributed as having these same benefits.
Not one cigarette is advertised as such. A turkey has a lot of tripophan
yet my Butterball doesn't say it aids in sleep.
Regards
Mike
Why do they have to Prove Anything? Kinda like why would a OEM have to Prove that Diketones are Safe to Inhale*?
*This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
Last edited:
What I am saying is one can't make therapeutic claims. therapeutic does not just
encompass the cure,treatment and,prevention of disease.
: producing good effects on your body or mind
: of or relating to the treatment of illness
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/therapeutic
Adj. 1.
alterative, curative, healing, sanative, remedial
healthful - conducive to good health of body or mind; "a healthful climate"; "a healthful environment"; "healthful nutrition";"healthful sleep"; "Dickens's relatively healthful exuberance"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/therapeutic
Regards
mike
What I am saying is one can't make therapeutic claims. therapeutic does not just
encompass the cure,treatment and,prevention of disease.
: producing good effects on your body or mind
: of or relating to the treatment of illness
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/therapeutic
Adj. 1.
therapeutic - tending to cure or restore to health; "curative powers of herbal remedies"; "her gentle healinghand"; "remedial surgery"; "a sanative environment of mountains and fresh air"; "a therapeutic agent";"therapeutic diets"
alterative, curative, healing, sanative, remedial
healthful - conducive to good health of body or mind; "a healthful climate"; "a healthful environment"; "healthful nutrition";"healthful sleep"; "Dickens's relatively healthful exuberance"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/therapeutic
Regards
mike
But who is Saying they are Making a "Therapeutic Claim"?
Also consider that the Definition of "Therapeutic" may be Different in Webster's Dictionary vs the Statutory Definition used to govern the Marketing of Consumer Products.
BTW - If I didn't know better. It almost sounds like you are in Favor of some types of Regulations governing How an e-Liquid can be Marketed.
I am saying they are because they are. In some cases suppressing the appetite,boosting your energy and sleeping good is therapeutically beneficial.
Regards
Mike
I see it as @skoony noting that if you are going to go for any (medical) type benefit, then FDA will possibly sit up and take notice and drop the metaphorical anvil on your product/marketing by daring to make such claims. They did so with Cheerios when Cheerios chose to market their product as "lowers cholesterol."
While I can't speak for skoony, I'm very okay with nutricigs marketing in that way. I wish it were possible to market more like that and let free market decide on veracity of such claims, while realizing some will get swindled into what possibly amounts to false claims. Me, since about the year 1995, I'd be googling that type of info and checking it out from other sources before I believe what they are claiming.
But FDA does seem to have power to make it so marketers can't market in very simple ways that relate to "this product holds some sort of medical/therapeutic benefit." One might ask, "who decides on that type of language as being therapeutic?" And obvious answer is the FDA does. But it springs from whatever the claim is, because that will be argued as mitigating the treatment of some disease. Perhaps it will be a very trivial type of disease that you'd need a medical dictionary to even understand how the claim could relate to that, but I'm guessing FDA is on top of that and is in general just saying if you are going to go in this direction, then you've invited us to the party and we love to dance. And we will be leading the whole time that we are on the dance floor. Count on it.
So, if advertising a product as DAP free, that could possibly be making a claim to mitigate against problems with lung functions that is somehow being claimed by certain vendors, with implication of "all other vendors products will cause problems with your lungs (and this is known to be true) whereas our products will not." If left strictly at DAP free, then perhaps a non-issue, but if explaining that even a tinge in your marketing efforts, then FDA may want a whole lot of stuff to be backed up, including how can you be so certain your non-flavored eLiquid will cause zero lung problems?
The recent District Court ruling against the FDA seems to bear you
out a certain degree. In . that ruling the court said the FDA could
not prohibit truthful statements made in advertising even if they
might imply to a consumer that the product was safer and thus
a healthier tobacco alternative. The ruling was in favor of
smokeless tobacco companies saying their product had no
tar and were smoke free. The Nutrcig ad taken as a whole
seems to imply more than statement of fact. It's not how
you or I view the ad, it's what the average consumer gets
out of it. Most people wouldn´t notice the disclaimer at
the bottom of the page nor understand the nuances in
in the description.
Regards
Mike
I sure wish you @Trayce had a clue what you are asking.
On the contrary I know exactly what I'm asking. Food companies said the same thing. No, you don't need 120ml bottle. A sheet with the order will do.
No, they wouldn't have to keep changing the list, that's the point of providing a list to begin with. You show ALL ingredients like you do with food. As certain chems come to light as potential problems, ppl could peruse their lists of flavor sheets and see if they want to stop vaping any of those...
You are the one who claims you make a decision on what you feel ok vaping, and stick to those flavors. How do you make this decision without knowing what's in them? Gut intuition? Good luck with that.
I think you think you know what you (specifically) are asking for, but don't realize politically what you are calling forth. Let's say whatever you think you are asking for is not aligned with someone else in this thread, then who's right? Is the person who says it doesn't go far enough more right than the person who says "this is all we need and all we ever asked for?"
With food labels it lists chemicals, but not amounts. As I write this, I'm looking at label for Pepsi. I'm sure most reading this post are familiar with ingredients, so I'll just spotlight one, "Citric Acid." Nothing on the label says how much, but that ingredient is listed. So, for eLiquid, it could just read "diacetyl" and then somewhere on site it could claim that it is below safe limits. But would never have to specify the amount according to your rhetoric of it just needs to match food labels.
So, for you that might be all you are asking for and is all you feel "we" need to know. But what if others are like, "this is worthless. We need to know the exact amount or what's the point of the label?"
Then let's say the amount is listed, but there is lack of trust in the people doing the testing (for whatever reason), does this mean it ought to list amount of say 2+ testers on the label? I mean it is possible vapers could say sure they listed the exact amount, but we have no reason to trust the people doing the testing, this label is worthless.
And I'm willing to say you (or anyone on this thread) won't know once labels come into existence. You'll think you might know. But, there are many indications of people likely not knowing. Some examples:
- (mentioned above) people might get info that lists chemicals in their eLiquid, but not the amount
- (mentioned above) people might get amount, but not know if that amount is "safe" at that level
- (mentioned throughout this thread) people might get info that certain chemicals are unsafe, but have nothing to base that on, other than speculation. Like no one reading this knows whether DAP is harmful (or safe) for vaping, and so having it listed as an ingredient, doesn't equal to knowing whether or not the product is more or less safe. As this is essentially what debate on this thread is centered around, no need to elaborate on this point, but is rather key point to realize people don't know / won't know just cause a label has it listed (or not).
- (mentioned above) misinformation about anything within bottle. As noted above, the label could say something like 10 ppm of DA, but according to another tester it's actually 180 ppm.
> But this misinformation thing is worthy of many subpoints, as I'm looking at bottle of Black Pepper eLiquid by me right now. It says 30 ml on it, yet I've learned that isn't accurate (likely a little under that amount). It also say 18 mg Nic (but we all know that might not be accurate). It also lists 60%PG/40%VG, which is plausibly not entirely accurate. So, I might think I know what I have in front of me, but if the info on the label is not accurate, then is it accurate to say that I in fact know?
- then just general lack of understanding about chemicals. Like if label said "butanedione-free" would that lead to everyone reading that to understand that means it contains no diacetyl? I'm thinking very likely not, and instead would lead people to thinking vendor is not being forthright enough to note whether their product includes diacetyl or not.
> And sub-point to this is what @Dixie1954 was conveying. If vendor lists the umpteen chemicals that go into simple "strawberry flavor" which my Pepsi product gets around by simple stating "natural flavor," then would most people know that the chemicals relate to the flavor or to some other component of the eLiquid?
> And additional sub-point for this is that it is quite plausible (I would say very likely) that every conceivable chemical in eLiquid carries with it a risk. In fact, I'd be surprised if there is ever a chemical (including H2O) that would be added to eLiquid and carry zero risks. Therefore, if person is matching chemical list from eLiquid with known risks of chemicals that might be in eLiquid, arguably all of them would be. Yet, if anything like the overhyped diacetyl issue, they'd possibly inflate the concern, for everything in eLiquid (including water molecules) is not 100% known over the long term as to what the risks are. And thus, this would be another way in which people could claim they know, when in reality, they wouldn't.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
