MBV pulls cinnamon juices

[Fortinbraz]

Fortinbraz: I'm kinda leaning towards 'prominent warning' in this case, rather than withdrawal.

But you can't be arguing that we should just sell whatever we can get away with, cos then the feds will leave us alone, can you? I don't think that's realistic.

Whether this case is over the line or not you'd probably need other lung specialists to tell you - I'm sure it's a debate that'll be hammered out for many such chemicals over the next few years.

But the fact that there is a line has to be a good thing. Never mind bridges, you wanna buy my anthrax e-liquid?

My desire is for the FDA to treat e-cigarettes as food products, with the ensuing regulations therein. For them to be deemed tobacco products (akin to treating Coca-Cola as a coca plant product) will ensure that overly onerous regulations will be enacted and enforced. This will clearly have a negative impact on small manufacturers and will force market consolidation. It all smells like regulatory capture and we all know who will benefit from that.

Also, I am not saying that (and did not say in my post) that cinnamon flavored liquids get a free pass in my book. In fact, I have not used cinnamon or tobacco flavored e-liquids since I reviewed the aforementioned Farsalinos study. But, it is my choice to avoid those products. There is peril when you swing too far to the risk-averse side, it is a classic slippery slope. In this case, the manufacturer's best step would have been to inform and let the consumer decide how much risk is right for them.

And thanks for the civil discourse.

 

[stoopid]

I choose death by Cinnamon Roll!

maybe they will use it in some sort of humane executions ... sir, you have a choice ... firing squad ... hanging ... lethal injection ... or death by Cinnamon Roll

 

[StormFinch]

I don't vape any oils at all. Even if you look at the Lorann flavorings and such, oils are defined as not safe for vaping.

Although other people do vape them with no problem, I prefer to be KIND to my already damaged lungs (from smoking)

I wonder if bobas bounty has cinnamon, I don't taste any though..........

Just to be clear for those that don't know, although LorAnn calls their flavorings "oils", a large portion of them don't have any oils in them. There is a list of those that are water soluble in the DIY section. Personally, I consider them too weak to bother to work with, but have used them in a pinch.

 

[Fulgurant]

Studies can be manipulated to read well for the sponsor. For example, the eliquid was applied to the cultures directly instead of vaporized. There is no corresponding study on the effect vaporization has on cinnamaldehyde, nor any study showing the degree of absorption of said compound by the respiratory system. It is still science, but is it good science?

If you think that the NIH/FDA will look at this action and say to themselves, "Gee, electronic cigarette e-liquid manufacturers are self-regulating. I guess we can all go home and sleep well knowing that.", then I've got a bridge to sell you. If anything, this study will be used to enact such strict regulation that small vendors will be forced out of the market. We are on the cusp of seeing the demise of the small merchant in favor of corporations that have the assets and legal teams to comply with said regulations (I'll just let you infer which types of corporations already have such commodities). Any study which is funded by known anti-vaping entities and whose conclusions are strictly in-line with their policy should be very closely scrutinized.

This is a matter of degrees of risk. Nicotine is also known to be cytotoxic, yet Mt. Baker continues to sell liquids containing it. If they felt it to be prudent to act, I certainly would have preferred a disclaimer for their cinnamon-containing products, not an outright discontinuation. This type of knee-jerk reaction is wholly uncalled for. There have already been previous studies on cinnamon containing e-liquids, including one by Dr. Farsalinos, a known pro-vaping advocate. His (unfortunately only) sample of a cinnamon flavored eliquid did, in fact, show cytotoxic potential. But, it was at least an order of magnitude less risk than cigarette smoke (which isn't saying much) and barely met the scientific criteria for cytotoxicity. So why was this study weighted such that immediate action needed to be taken? The research is not even published yet.

I don't disagree with any of that, but you and I aren't in the e-juice business. It's easy for us to say that this-or-that study isn't good cause to villify a given flavoring, but MBV has to act in its own (and by extension, its customers') best long-term interest.

The study in question may turn out to be total, typical-Prue-style BS. I sincerely hope it does, in fact, but this issue isn't just about cinnamon or any other flavoring; it's about trust. The fact that MBV is willing to pull flavors at the first halfway credible hint of danger (and that MBV makes an effort to warn about which of its flavors have been reported by any user to melt plastic tanks, among other things) gives me confidence that ordering from them is as safe as possible.

We should all be so lucky if vendors/manufacturers in every industry were as proactive as MBV is about stuff like this. As for the extent/credibility of the current threat? Give it time.

 

[WillyZee]

Thank you for posting this ...

Just for reference, the lead author received a $90,00 grant from the NIH to fund this study. She is also a graduate student under Prue Talbot (also a co-author), who has gained recent notoriety as an anti-vaping activist.

from the article ...

The three-year competitive award will cover tuition and living expenses for the remainder of her tenure in graduate school.

seriously ... living expenses? ... wonder how much is spent on research?

 

[StormFinch]

Science is dispassionate and repeatable by definition. If it isn't science, it isn't science: makes no difference whether you publish it in a journal or not.

True, but the point I was making is that the scientist doing it isn't necessarily dispassionate, and putting junk science out there can be harmful to a whole industry, even after it's been debunked several times. I will admit that cinnamon flavorings needs to be looked at closer as an inhalant, but not by Prue Talbot or anyone associated with her. This is the same woman that culled a bunch of posts from ECF on possible health side effects (you know them, those that at least half the time turn out to be a side effect of quitting smoking) and presented it as a "study".

 

[Fortinbraz]

I don't disagree with any of that, but you and I aren't in the e-juice business. It's easy for us to say that this-or-that study isn't good cause to villify a given flavoring, but MBV has to act in its own (and by extension, its customers') best long-term interest.

The study in question may turn out to be total, typical-Prue-style BS. I sincerely hope it does, in fact, but this issue isn't just about cinnamon or any other flavoring; it's about trust. The fact that MBV is willing to pull flavors at the first halfway credible hint of danger (and that MBV makes an effort to warn about which of its flavors have been reported by any user to melt plastic tanks, among other things) gives me confidence that ordering from them is as safe as possible.

We should all be so lucky if vendors/manufacturers in every industry were as proactive as MBV is about stuff like this. As for the extent/credibility of the current threat? Give it time.

The study has not even been vetted by peers, so I have to take "halfway credible" with a grain of salt. If this is all that ANTZ have to do to get vendors to pull products, I can see a future of Shoe Leather, Aqua Velva and Rancid Tomato flavored e-liquids. Because, you know, they are "safe". I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that we will soon see a study on cotton candy or peppermint flavored e-liquids which likewise show increased potential for cytotoxicity. As I said in another post, this is a slippery slope; using research which is sponsored by ANTZ, performed by ANTZ and whose results are beneficial to ANTZ should be thoroughly scrutinized before acting.

I am not anti-Mt. Baker by any stretch, I use several of their e-liquids and appreciate them as a vendor. I think they just made a mistake in this circumstance which may have longer term consequences than they anticipate. But, of course, they are a larger vendor who, in all likelihood would survive the impediment of tough regulations. So, in fact, maybe they are acting in the interest of their business. If all the TVC, VCV, AVE, etc. companies are forced to close, those consumers have to go somewhere, eh? Now, I don't personally know James Thompson, so I am not going to make these kinds of nefarious assumptions (the last couple of sentences are meant to be satirical), but if he is a businessman then he will be doing what is best for his business.

 

[generic mutant]

It's really a question of semantics. To me, cargo-cultists aren't scientists. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it isn't science by definition. And yes, I have come across her previous 'study', and it was gibberish.

But that she's a woman with an axe to grind doesn't mean she might not publish stuff that stands up to scrutiny.

Given the reported extreme reactions to cinnamaldehyde (I think some hospitalisations have been reported), they needed to do something - either withdraw it, or put a big, unambiguous warning label on it.

If people are withdrawing it now, and further research discredits any suggestion of long term harm, they can reintroduce it with said warnings. That's a better strategy than sticking our fingers in our ears and saying "we don't care what the evidence says", and hoping the government doesn't come and do the caring for us.

 

[spawnsharks]

I have a bunch of flavors with cinnamon on the way... in fact, tracking shows them at a sort facility. Hope I don't die from vaping them...

What makes you think you would die from vaping them?

I kid, I kid... this is a case where sarcasm denotation would be necessary. One friend thinks reverse italics, another thinks that we should adopt the sarcasm mark. I like the reverse italics idea myself... can't wait to use 'em.

 

[DustyZ]

I can't believe the attitude that if isn't as bad as smoking, then it must be safe. My guess is that flavors won't be banned, in general, but that certain ones- like cinnamon and custard should and will be banned. I tried some cinnamon once and my throat closed up to the point I was close to performing a self tracheotomy with a knife and a pen.

I highly doubt that anyone on here thinks that vaping is 100% safe, the fact of the matter is that just breathing air isn't always that safe either. The fact that you are taking in something that your body was not meant to take in for survival is NOT safe! Vaping is just a safer alternative.

 

[Fulgurant]

The study has not even been vetted by peers, so I have to take "halfway credible" with a grain of salt. If this is all that ANTZ have to do to get vendors to pull products, I can see a future of Shoe Leather, Aqua Velva and Rancid Tomato flavored e-liquids. Because, you know, they are "safe". I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that we will soon see a study on cotton candy or peppermint flavored e-liquids which likewise show increased potential for cytotoxicity. As I said in another post, this is a slippery slope; using research which is sponsored by ANTZ, performed by ANTZ and whose results are beneficial to ANTZ should be thoroughly scrutinized before acting.

Believe me, I'm about as anti-ANTZ as they come.

But I don't see the slippery slope here. In fact, there have been previous indications that cinnamon isn't the safest thing to vape. This isn't a case of Prue Talbot's acolyte merely throwing a dart at a wall and the e-juice industry leaping timorously in response. MBV's simply pulling one flavor out of how many hundreds, as a precaution, in response to yet another bit of bad press, backed by at least putative science.

In principle, this is no different from food vendors' issuing recalls of or releasing warnings about foods that may or may not (but in most cases, probably not) have been contaminated. They do it to cover their own backsides, but whether intentional or not, the natural side effect is that they also promote trust with their customers and would-be customers in the general public. In my view, this event typifies precisely what you claim to want: self-regulation on the part of a food-style industry.

Like I said before, it's too early to say whether MBV will permanently pull cinnamon or not. If I had to guess, I'd say probably not, but even if cinnamon never reappears in MBV's catalogue I'm not gonna go off half cocked about how this singular event signals the end of good-flavored vapes.

YMMV. In any case, I appreciate the conversation.

 

[DustyZ]

for years, we all inhaled hundreds of proven carcinogenic chemicals into our lungs and justified it. now everybody is in a tizzy about cinnamon? if it bothers you, stop doing it. if not, enjoy. easy peazy

You would think that this would be the case with any logical or rational individual however, unfortunately there are always going to be those that want to cause problems, the Sky is falling mentality, bashing and fear mongering. Some of the things I have seen people complain or argue about is as bad as the old "I'm not touching you" game!

 

[Fortinbraz]

Believe me, I'm about as anti-ANTZ as they come.

But I don't see the slippery slope here. In fact, there have been previous indications that cinnamon isn't the safest thing to vape. This isn't a case of Prue Talbot's acolyte merely throwing a dart at a wall and the e-juice industry leaping timorously in response. MBV's simply pulling one flavor out of how many hundreds, as a precaution, in response to yet another bit of bad press, backed by at least putative science.

In principle, this is no different from food vendors' issuing recalls of or releasing warnings about foods that may or may not (but in most cases, probably not) have been contaminated. They do it to cover their own backsides, but whether intentional or not, the natural side effect is that they also promote trust with their customers and would-be customers in the general public. In my view, this event typifies precisely what you claim to want: self-regulation on the part of a food-style industry.

Like I said before, it's too early to say whether MBV will permanently pull cinnamon or not. If I had to guess, I'd say probably not, but even if cinnamon never reappears in MBV's catalogue I'm not gonna go off half cocked about how this singular event signals the end of good-flavored vapes.

YMMV. In any case, I appreciate the conversation.

If, in fact, James Thompson (Mt. Baker's owner) has used the consolidated research, from a variety of sources, to reach this conclusion, then I would rescind several points that I made earlier. My major concern was that this decision was made citing only one potentially flawed study made by ANTZ, which would be bad precedent. And thank you for the civil discourse; I rarely post on ECF, but maybe I should do so more frequently.

 

[Mowgli]

If you go back through time and do your own research you'll realize that Prue Talbot is an ANTZ with an axe to grind against vapers. A lot of the studies and methodoligies used prior by her have been laughable at best. Remember, this is the "researcher" who compiled a list of health complaints from posters on ECF and used them as "proof" of vaping causing these issues. Even when the OP of those posts came back in and updated with a visit to their Doctor who promptly discovered the real non-vape related cause of their symptoms. Anything with her in the mix is suspect from the onset.

Just for reference, the lead author received a $90,00 grant from the NIH to fund this study. She is also a graduate student under Prue Talbot (also a co-author), who has gained recent notoriety as an anti-vaping activist.

In fact, the last slide on the slideshow from the paper says this:


Now, does that sound like an impartial, scientific statement to you? The whole scenario reeks of bias and Mt. Baker should have known better than to pull their product based on this report. The "better safe than sorry" argument is exactly the logic that anti-vaping zealots use to justify a ban on e-cigarettes in general. Does Mt. Baker really want to perpetuate that fallacy?

While I agree that it's pretty clear where her sentiments lie, it's also the case that science is science - either it's accurate, or it isn't, no matter who funds it.

It might be a prudent move for e-cigarettes as a whole to pull flavours with some evidence of harm. Shows we're regulating ourselves, does it not?

Studies can be manipulated to read well for the sponsor. For example, the eliquid was applied to the cultures directly instead of vaporized. There is no corresponding study on the effect vaporization has on cinnamaldehyde, nor any study showing the degree of absorption of said compound by the respiratory system. It is still science, but is it good science?

If you think that the NIH/FDA will look at this action and say to themselves, "Gee, electronic cigarette e-liquid manufacturers are self-regulating. I guess we can all go home and sleep well knowing that.", then I've got a bridge to sell you. If anything, this study will be used to enact such strict regulation that small vendors will be forced out of the market. We are on the cusp of seeing the demise of the small merchant in favor of corporations that have the assets and legal teams to comply with said regulations (I'll just let you infer which types of corporations already have such commodities). Any study which is funded by known anti-vaping entities and whose conclusions are strictly in-line with their policy should be very closely scrutinized.

This is a matter of degrees of risk. Nicotine is also known to be cytotoxic, yet Mt. Baker continues to sell liquids containing it. If they felt it to be prudent to act, I certainly would have preferred a disclaimer for their cinnamon-containing products, not an outright discontinuation. This type of knee-jerk reaction is wholly uncalled for. There have already been previous studies on cinnamon containing e-liquids, including one by Dr. Farsalinos, a known pro-vaping advocate. His (unfortunately only) sample of a cinnamon flavored eliquid did, in fact, show cytotoxic potential. But, it was at least an order of magnitude less risk than cigarette smoke (which isn't saying much) and barely met the scientific criteria for cytotoxicity. So why was this study weighted such that immediate action needed to be taken? The research is not even published yet.

Fortinbraz: I'm kinda leaning towards 'prominent warning' in this case, rather than withdrawal.

But you can't be arguing that we should just sell whatever we can get away with, cos then the feds will leave us alone, can you? I don't think that's realistic.

Whether this case is over the line or not you'd probably need other lung specialists to tell you - I'm sure it's a debate that'll be hammered out for many such chemicals over the next few years.

But the fact that there is a line has to be a good thing. Never mind bridges, you wanna buy my anthrax e-liquid?

Not necessarily. The EPA admitted to cherry picking their information to make second hand smoke appear more dangerous than it really is, a judge even overturned it, yet it's still in use today and a "holy" document in the arsenal of every Antz out there. There are many ways that a scientist with a bias can skew the information to fit their own agenda, otherwise the FDA wouldn't have whistleblowers coming out of their own woodwork.

Science is dispassionate and repeatable by definition. If it isn't science, it isn't science: makes no difference whether you publish it in a journal or not.

I don't disagree with any of that, but you and I aren't in the e-juice business. It's easy for us to say that this-or-that study isn't good cause to villify a given flavoring, but MBV has to act in its own (and by extension, its customers') best long-term interest.

The study in question may turn out to be total, typical-Prue-style BS. I sincerely hope it does, in fact, but this issue isn't just about cinnamon or any other flavoring; it's about trust. The fact that MBV is willing to pull flavors at the first halfway credible hint of danger (and that MBV makes an effort to warn about which of its flavors have been reported by any user to melt plastic tanks, among other things) gives me confidence that ordering from them is as safe as possible.

We should all be so lucky if vendors/manufacturers in every industry were as proactive as MBV is about stuff like this. As for the extent/credibility of the current threat? Give it time.

True, but the point I was making is that the scientist doing it isn't necessarily dispassionate, and putting junk science out there can be harmful to a whole industry, even after it's been debunked several times. I will admit that cinnamon flavorings needs to be looked at closer as an inhalant, but not by Prue Talbot or anyone associated with her. This is the same woman that culled a bunch of posts from ECF on possible health side effects (you know them, those that at least half the time turn out to be a side effect of quitting smoking) and presented it as a "study".

The study has not even been vetted by peers, so I have to take "halfway credible" with a grain of salt. If this is all that ANTZ have to do to get vendors to pull products, I can see a future of Shoe Leather, Aqua Velva and Rancid Tomato flavored e-liquids. Because, you know, they are "safe". I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that we will soon see a study on cotton candy or peppermint flavored e-liquids which likewise show increased potential for cytotoxicity. As I said in another post, this is a slippery slope; using research which is sponsored by ANTZ, performed by ANTZ and whose results are beneficial to ANTZ should be thoroughly scrutinized before acting.

I am not anti-Mt. Baker by any stretch, I use several of their e-liquids and appreciate them as a vendor. I think they just made a mistake in this circumstance which may have longer term consequences than they anticipate. But, of course, they are a larger vendor who, in all likelihood would survive the impediment of tough regulations. So, in fact, maybe they are acting in the interest of their business. If all the TVC, VCV, AVE, etc. companies are forced to close, those consumers have to go somewhere, eh? Now, I don't personally know James Thompson, so I am not going to make these kinds of nefarious assumptions (the last couple of sentences are meant to be satirical), but if he is a businessman then he will be doing what is best for his business.

Believe me, I'm about as anti-ANTZ as they come.

But I don't see the slippery slope here. In fact, there have been previous indications that cinnamon isn't the safest thing to vape. This isn't a case of Prue Talbot's acolyte merely throwing a dart at a wall and the e-juice industry leaping timorously in response. MBV's simply pulling one flavor out of how many hundreds, as a precaution, in response to yet another bit of bad press, backed by at least putative science.

In principle, this is no different from food vendors' issuing recalls of or releasing warnings about foods that may or may not (but in most cases, probably not) have been contaminated. They do it to cover their own backsides, but whether intentional or not, the natural side effect is that they also promote trust with their customers and would-be customers in the general public. In my view, this event typifies precisely what you claim to want: self-regulation on the part of a food-style industry.

Like I said before, it's too early to say whether MBV will permanently pull cinnamon or not. If I had to guess, I'd say probably not, but even if cinnamon never reappears in MBV's catalogue I'm not gonna go off half cocked about how this singular event signals the end of good-flavored vapes.

YMMV. In any case, I appreciate the conversation.

Just pulling together a wall-of-text multipost.

I'll continue to vape my cinnamon roll, dutch apple pie and sticky bun.

Smells like ANTZ and I'll change my habits if science is provided proving harm from vaping cinnamon.

I would've just added a tentative warning pending a third party scientific study but MBV did a good thing IMO.

 

[Denrock316]

This is just my opinion but I think the smartest move MBV could make would be to put a warning or disclaimer on any juices that contain cinnamon and continue selling them. Maybe also include a warning that would show up in the order process to be sure the buyer is aware of this possible issue and that if there is any real issue (I personally don't believe there is) that MBV is not responsible. So basically a buyer beware type of thing.

 

[DustyZ]

look, the thing is, in this day of age with the internet and mountains of data so readily accessible, one could probably find a study on ANYTHING. and there will be conflicting results. that is the nature of studies. one study says coffee bad, one says coffee good. if you take everything you read as gospel, you will just end up spinning in circles and scared to eat, drink or vape anything! View attachment 275151

You forgot 1, Breathing! Should we all stop breathing due to contaminants in the air.

 

[DustyZ]

Yaeliq pulls their cinnamon flavors also...per their website...

Now, lets see how many people bash them for doing it!

 

[stoopid]

For all of you people that are thinking about tossing your cinnamon juice, send it to me. Sharing is caring, let me be the guinea pig.

 

[Denrock316]

Just pulling together a wall-of-text multipost.

I'll continue to vape my cinnamon roll, dutch apple pie and sticky bun.

Smells like ANTZ and I'll change my habits if science is provided proving harm from vaping cinnamon.

I would've just added a tentative warning pending a third party scientific study but MBV did a good thing IMO.

Same here and I have plenty of all 3 of those flavors to last me awhile. I imagine they will be being sold again before I come close to running out so I'm not to overly worried about any of this yet. I just hope that MBV isn't losing too many sales. They do have lots of other great cinnamon free flavors so I'd think they should be fine.

 

[DustyZ]

Just for reference, the lead author received a $90,00 grant from the NIH to fund this study. She is also a graduate student under Prue Talbot (also a co-author), who has gained recent notoriety as an anti-vaping activist.

In fact, the last slide on the slideshow from the paper says this:


Now, does that sound like an impartial, scientific statement to you? The whole scenario reeks of bias and Mt. Baker should have known better than to pull their product based on this report. The "better safe than sorry" argument is exactly the logic that anti-vaping zealots use to justify a ban on e-cigarettes in general. Does Mt. Baker really want to perpetuate that fallacy?

Oh for cryin out loud, are you serious. Give me a break, they are only being cautious, I commend them on this. They are not perpetuating anything, those that make comments such as this are what takes things to a different level. I would rather have someone give a crap other then someone who doesn't and still only looks to nothing more then the bottom line. If this is the stance the MBV wishes to make, good for them, they should be commended not bashed. But the fact of the matter is, it's everyone's responsibility to research what they are using, putting in their body and make their own judgements. You know any company is going to have issues with any decisions they make, bad, good or indifferent. If there does in fact become and issue, which I highly doubt, but if it did, you know what will happen then is all those people will start complaining and bashing them and others for NOT pulling the juice! Catch 22