"It only takes ONE bad chemical"
- Thread starter Moonbogg
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
What would be example of truthful labeling as it relates to the DAP contents? What I'd like to see in your response is a list of options, but if you wanna go with "full disclosure" please provide that as example. I'm curious what "truthful" means in this context.
Truthful would mean that you don't make any statement, direct or implied, regarding the contents or fitness to purpose of the product, without being able to fully back up that statement by the highest scientific/technological/legal standards.
Selling on e-bay "Mix of 50% USP PG of 99.9% purity and 50% USP PG of 99% purity", "with +- 5% maximum dosage error of ingredients", without any reference to e-liquid, e-juice, vaping (i.e. no implied fitness to such purpose) would be "truthful" labeling.
As soon as you label it "e-juice", "e-liquid", mention vaping or sell it in a "vaping shop", you're making an implied "fitness to purpose" statement, including that the impurities do not have any substantial hazardous effect when the product is used for the suggested purpose. If you can't back that up then don't say it.
P.S. This can explain why certain PG manufacturers are reluctant to sell PG for vaping purposes. They would be making the implied statement that it is fit for inhalation, which is something they cannot stand behind.
Last edited:
1. Okay, now do this for DAP so I can get sense of how truthful labeling works for that under these conditions. Let's say you've had a test on the eLiquid before it goes to market and you as seller understand, via third party testing that you paid for, that it is in there, but do not understand the amount and/or it is not stated as a result of the testing. But again, that it has been tested.
2. I kinda wish to dispute the other stuff as in who is (truthfully) able to determine highest scientific / technological / legal standards? Or who can truthfully determine if a statement can be backed up, or not? Or what if you feel you can't even back up the "mix of" portion with regards to "highest scientific standard," then would you be engaged in truthful labeling by not even having that on there? Or on the flip side, what if you determine that you can back up all that you state (i.e. that it is safe for inhalation) even while other vendors and perhaps some (but not all) scientific, technology or legal experts may dispute your claims?
3. Mostly do care about the first item, the DAP labeling as it pertains to this thread, but do see that truthful labeling is related to this and am very curious how that is possibly able to be determined when so called experts are playing games that amount to deceitful propaganda about said ingredients.
1.
a) If DAP is not considered "GRAS" for inhaling, then you should not make any implicit statement that your product is fit for such purpose (i.e. sell it as a "Mix of PG VG DAP" on e-bay or a general chemicals store, not as e-liquid in a vaping store) or disclose its presence, quantity and possible side-effects (like pharma does with pills or California does with "this product contains a known carcinogen" labels on about anything)
b) the testing should be done at "highest technological standards" i.e. using accurate, calibrated, correctly maintained and sufficiently sensitive instruments for the intended purpose.
c) if you don't understand what the detected DAP means or does, hire someone qualified that could explain it to you, preferably in writing as to engage legal responsibility
2.
a) see 1 b) for technological standards.
b) for scientific, you should review all the available literature regarding the substance in question and its effects for a specific use (or hire someone qualified to do it for you); if there are standing concerns then you have to either not suggest that specific use or disclose the substance
c) for legal, you should review and observe all the standards and regulations regarding said substance in said intended use, as published by EPA/OSHA/NIOSH/FDA/etc; also any components in your mixture shall be sourced from manufacturers that observe similar scientific/tech/legal standards
3.
If there's no consensus and there are plausible indications that DAP is hazardous when inhaled then you have to disclose. "We don't know the long term effects" is not a plausible indication. "We have 120 cases of BO where subjects inhaled high quantities of DAP" is.
In conclusion: if your liquid contains 0.5% water you don't have to disclose it other than as "GRAS impurities". If it contains 0.5% arsenic then you disclose and don't suggest anyone to vape it.
GRAS by who's standards? I'm convinced, given available evidence that we currently have that DAP is GRAS. My evidence would be zero incidents of harm for what is plausible to have some indication of harm in 7 years or less.
You seem to be saying (or are asserting) that only listing ingredients, and not purpose for what the product was intended for, is "truthful labeling." IMO, it is closer to CYA, and with supplementing data (i.e. possible side-effects) that are debatable, thus not necessarily truthful.
According to who? I would very much want to scrutinize the heck out of these 'technological standards' both on technical side of things, the economic side of things (why any cost at all?), and practical standards with regards to truth telling. Another might not wish to scrutinize and go with faith that a third party has all this taken care of, and that the pricing is 'fair.' So, we are on a thread where the test costs around $60, but I'm guessing many of us would scrutinize the standards of the equipment, possibly concluding that based on price alone, it can't be all that good. And that someone charging $2000 for a test is probably doing it legitimately, or to a higher standard. But how would average vendor know? And more importantly, why should they care? I know how that last question reads, but will be glad to follow up on it, as I think it is at heart of 'truth telling' with regards to labeling, and how that could tear apart the industry in ways that might have very little to do with truth telling.
What would this person provide that a layperson couldn't accomplish via truth telling?
I did, and I scrutinized the heck out of this proposition. I will await your reply.
I would say this is impractical. I think many will do this, and that it will still lead to issues given the fickle nature of vaping consumers on this topic. I have an ongoing wager that pertains to how I see this playing out going forward.
What if EPA, OSHA, etc. are not telling the truth regarding DAP and that this can be shown, but is ignored by them as they are convinced that they are being accurate with the information?
So, the consumer would have to decipher what GRAS impurities means, rather than going with something akin to full disclosure from vendor and/or truth telling by the vendor.
I give you (anyone) hard time on the DAP labeling because it is prime example of something that based on evidence to date is GRAS, but is not allowed that designation by some who have demonstrated desire to control the industry / market based on own agenda, or bias. I feel I can back up my take on DAP and thus far the backing up of DAP as potentially harmful is based on speculation or things that do not necessarily apply to vaping.
@Jman8 Nice post - esp. the 'standard - according to whom' things - exactly what has to be asked and where the answer is in some cases - some liberal 'no threshold standard' where any level of a 'known carcinogen' (also something that should be queried by 'according to whom' since it changes all the time or depending up one what source one references. Formaldehyde for example can be a 'co-carcinogen' or a 'known carcinogen' depending on source accessed. ) Anyway, the no threshold standard could be even at non-detectable levels and is wholly dependent upon the method or tool of measurement which increases exponentially every 5 years even.
This is just another case of some nannies wanting to shut down industry and then finding the right standard in order to justify it and then their supporters suing companies for labeling. Pushing the price to consumers sometimes out of reach for the very poooor they say they want to help.
It's like some of the McDonald workers protesting for an increase in minimum wage are going to lose their jobs and Big Mac prices will stretch the budget at the low income level. Oh well - "we meant well'
This is just another case of some nannies wanting to shut down industry and then finding the right standard in order to justify it and then their supporters suing companies for labeling. Pushing the price to consumers sometimes out of reach for the very poooor they say they want to help.
It's like some of the McDonald workers protesting for an increase in minimum wage are going to lose their jobs and Big Mac prices will stretch the budget at the low income level. Oh well - "we meant well'
Last edited:
@Jman8 : You're complicating it too much. Let me make it simple again. "Truthful labeling" means that you exercised "due diligence" in labeling your product. At least in the Merriam-Webster sense ("the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property") and to sufficient extent that it is provable in court.
It is different than "full disclosure" where you would need to list everything, even stray atoms and molecules - now that one would be an impractical approach.
It is different than "full disclosure" where you would need to list everything, even stray atoms and molecules - now that one would be an impractical approach.
If a company lies about diacetyl and someone claims to have COPD from it, I wonder if criminal charges can be filed? The peanut guy was just sentenced to 28 years...
Even if they disclose, I expect they will be without a full defense. There is precedent for severe lung damage where diketone inhalation occurred. Vendors added, on purpose, diketones to their liquid in order to boost sales, or they didn't remove them after testing. If they don't test or claim lack of knowledge, then its negligence and reckless endangerment. If they disclose, that's not a defense and they will lose a lawsuit when people get damaged lungs.
Saying, "I disclosed it" is to admit that you knew there was a specific, known risk of damage to customer's lungs and you sold it anyway. That's like selling tires with paper thin sidewalls that might explode while you drive, and disclosing the thickness measurement of the sidewalls to the customer. They don't know what that means and they trusted you to provide a safe tire, just like we have trusted vendors to sell liquid that won't permanently damage our lungs.
This is all a very cut and dry case of people putting profit over the safety and health of their customers. They justify it, deny the risk, claim its the customer's fault, blame it on the FDA for not regulating it, claiming its not illegal so they are allowed to do it, etc etc.
Don't you mean "IF vendors added.... etc." ? Or do you know this to be the case? And it is pretty hard/impossible to determine 'intent' as in "in order to boost sales" unless you have emails regarding that.
Also, "I disclosed it" isn't necessarily to admit that 'one knew there were specific known risks.' It could be the case that the vendor was unfamiliar with anything about diketones and once they became aware and checked their products, that they then reported that and changed it.
And what about the consumer? Wouldn't they be 'negligent' along the same lines? You suppose that vendors would automatically know the alleged dangers. Couldn't the same be said about the consumers? Perhaps you could assume 'intent' in their case as well - say, a slow suicide attempt - which in some localities is actionable or at least a moral crime.
But let's say - as with some smokers - they knew about diacetyl and decided to use eliquids with it anyway because of taste. A personal decision that harms no one but perhaps themselves. Can they then later sue a vendor or manufacturer if they knew ahead of time, like many smokers who sued big tobacco? Or do you just want to indict only one side of this consensual exchange?
And since one is responsible for their own health, isn't it incumbent that the person themselves find out all there is to know about any substance they ingest or inhale and see to it that they only buy from vendors who they can either be assured no such substance are present? (which is still only 'faith' in what someone would say or faith in 'lab reports' that they may provide.)
But you might say, 'that's what gov't regulation is for!' Here's a story regarding steve's peanut guy:
"MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota (CNN) -- The deadly outbreak of salmonella traced to a Georgia peanut plant was fueled by poor oversight by food safety regulators and a slow response by federal agencies, state health officials and outside experts say."
Should the FDA be responsible for the deaths? The FDA head indicted and sent to jail?
The point isn't that, but that the FDA didn't really 'provide the protection' that some think is absolute when done by gov't, and absent when it is done by business, who actually have the most to lose (other than the customers), if their products are tainted. Again, consumers when they have these type of considerations should take it on themselves, since it is their bodies for which they are responsible.
Last edited:
Yes, and I don't think ANYONE actually KNOWS FOR A FACT anything about diketone exposure leading to certain death. It's been pointed out, and I think it's valid, that just because a court case was decided along those lines, means nothing, scientifically -- it just means a sharp lawyer was able to sway a jury -- who are all probably as ignorant about diketones as the rest of us.
I may avoid them myself, for my own good reasons, but I really haven't seen anything that indicates there is PROOF that diketones in ejuice will lead to any particular outcome.
Andria
Yes; they created a very similar thread not too long ago, got taken to school, back peddled and said maybe they went too far with their assumptions and now here we are a short time later with a very similar post featuring an "article" that proves nothing but implies everything.
Bottom line is if you don't want to vape diketones then don't. There are plenty of companys that will be happy to have your business and can back up their claims with test results and assume any company that does not have documents proving the juice to be free of these compounds contains them and avoid them.
That is how the free market works in this situation. You don't want diketones then only shop with vendors who can prove their juice doesn't contain them. Over time if more and more customers want certified diketone free juices then businesses will move to fill that niche and the companies that don't adapt will be left by the way side.
We are all adults and can make our own decisions. We do not need anyone to protect us nor do we need regulations on things that aren't even proven to be an issue when vaping. Its simple enough to avoid them and leave everyone else alone.
No one is forcing anyone to vape diketones. I don't really understand what the issue is. Some people don't eat nitrates because its an avoidable risk but no one is advocating a blanket ban on them. Personally I love cured meats.
It is simple to avoid nitrates because they are required to be listed on the label. In addition, he FDA has established guidelines to limit the amount of nitrites that can be used in foods.
This comparison leaves me asking how the average vaper would know if their liquid contains diketones so they could make that choice. Perhaps labeling, just like nitrates, is a good idea. Not how much, just whether they are a component. "Contains diketones" would suffice.
If it's on the label, then it would be simple enough to avoid them and "leave everyone else alone".
That's exactly what the tobacco cigarette industry does. Good luck suing them.
You forgot how things work - if, as a seller, you indicate (directly or implied) a fitness of the product to a certain purpose, then the onus of "due diligence" is on you. If you don't make any such indication, then the onus is on the consumer - you can sell him arsenic all day long. Just don't label it e-juice.
Well, my point is that people don't rapidly expire from bronchiolitis obliterans in the manner that they do from asthma. By the way, have you ever tried a swig of tonic as a remedy?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101024144132.htm
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
