Ok is it just me or do E-Liquid manufacturers need to do their part?

[kristin]

Well frankly if I were Penn I wouldn't do a show on ecigs either.
There hasn't been NEARLY enough research on inhaling large volumes of these vaporized fluids for long periods.

I mean lets all take a step back and be honest. In all likelihood there is very little chance they are going to be found to be significantly harmful. ESPECIALLY when you consider them in relation to cigarettes. But to say we know that as a fact is just simply untrue. Don't get me wrong. I'd put my money on them being mostly safe in a bet. But "very likely safe" is not "definitely" safe.

How many products approved by the FDA had 6 years of use by thousands of test subjects before they were approved?

Chantix certainly didn't have that requirement.

They didn't do long-term testing on NRTs because the instructions tell people to wean off the product within 6 months. Unfortunately, that completely ignores the fact that up to 40% of users continue use the product indefinately.

Ecigs have been on the market for 6 years world-wide & 2 years in the U.S. with no reports of serious illness, injury or death related to ecigs.

What exactly is "long-term?"

Besides, NOTHING is 100% safe - even FDA-approved products. Most FDA-approved products put on the market today are deemed "most likely safe" based on short-term, limited clinical trials and never declared "definitely safe."

Why are ecigs expected to be held to a higher standard?

 

[dubd1c3]

Kristin,

Can you cite the 40% of NRT users use indefinitely? I have been looking for something saying that. Thanks

 

[kristin]

Kristin,

Can you cite the 40% of NRT users use indefinitely? I have been looking for something saying that. Thanks

Let me look at my sources - I wrote about it in one of my articles. It was something like 36% of gum users several years ago and with the drop in smoking since then, the number could be higher (why I said "up to").

Wait, I found the article: American Lung Association Vs. Electronic Cigarettes - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

 

[cainne]

My comment was simply from their perspective of legal "CYA" and any potential liability for any perceived "endorsement".

 

[kristin]

My comment was simply from their perspective of legal "CYA" and any potential liability for any perceived "endorsement".

My cmoment was in response to the continued assertation that there hasn't been any real research or any long-term research.

That's the claim the antis make and we need to stop reinforcing that claim.

What clinical study could possibly show more proof or lack of safety than 6 years of real-world use without serious adverse effects on tens of thousands of users?

If you regurgitate the anti stance to Penn & Teller, of course they wouldn't want to do a show on ecigs.

Consider the fact that if vendors had just put the "claims not evaluated by the FDA and ecigs are not meant to treat a disease or addiction" disclaimer on their products in the first place, they may have circumvented the FDA altogether like diet pills do. Then, as in the case of fen-fen, they could have been on the market until people started getting sick (which hasn't happened.)

I'm not saying that vendors are ok to tell people that ecigs are safe or healthy - even NRTs don't usually make that claim - but they should be able to tell people about all of the things that ecigs DON'T have that cigarettes DO have and that there have been no reports of ecig-related injury or serious illness in 6 years. Additionally, none of the ingredients are known to cause cancer, nor have toxic levels of any chemicals been found in testing - including the FDA test.

Give people the facts and they'll be able to decided for themselves if ecigs sound safer or healthier than smoking, without actually saying the word "safe" or "healthy." (Although, "healthy" should never be used.)

"Shown to be safer," "lacks XYZ found in cigarettes," "no smoke," "no reported serious illness," "no toxic levels of any chemicals found," etc are OK, IMO.

 

[dubd1c3]

I agree with what Kristin just said.

How funny, I had already integrated that article into my research. Thank you muchly!

 

[cainne]

While real world examples may be helpful in support it's still merely anecdotal.

 

[CES]

I agree with the point that labeling and advertising needs to be honest and consistent. However, there are studies other than the discredited FDA study, there are reports on e-liquid contents.

Anecdotal evidence can be very powerful. Anecdotal evidence is what started people researching the link between smoking and lung cancer. Anecdotal evidence is what the FDA collects in the adverse events reports that are submitted after a product goes on the market. They change the black box warnings on the basis of the reports, even if they haven't been published in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[wolflrv]

Just putting it simply...if I ever saw a bottle of juice that had a label on it that said FDA approved..or manufactured by Phillip Morris for that matter there is no way in hell I'd buy it!! And I have bought the "properly packaged" juices in the past with the fancy glass bottles and such..I'd much rather have the smaller, generic easy to squeeze ones. I can take and clean one of those and reuse them easily and they dispense the juice quite well.

For reference...I buy top ingredients from very well established and reputable vendors on this forum and mix my own juices.

I think we should be very careful in pushing all this formality or we'll end up without e-cigs, because suppliers won't be able to afford all the compliance issues and we'll be stuck with companies like SE that will charge us $5 per pre-filled carts that last for 10 minutes. The cost being associated with ridiculous liability regulations.

We keep expecting the government or some other authority to "protect" us from life in general...when what we should be doing is educating and informing ourselves and taking personal responsibility for our actions and choices. And anyone who thinks the FDA is acting in their best interest is sorely deluded.

I apologize for the harshness of this post...but this really ...... me off! My opinions are my own.

 

[Little Girl]

While real world examples may be helpful in support it's still merely anecdotal.

Let's do something about that! Perhaps we should do a poll to find out how many members of E-Cigarette Forum would be willing to provide their real name and address to any of these so that they can do whatever tests they'd like to verify that we're all telling the truth about how these incredible e-cigs have benefited our lives:

• the FDA
• any other government agency
• any other government-approved agency
• any accredited physician
• any accredited physician group
• any accredited lab

I'll happily offer myself to any of the above if they'd like to study me and the effects e-cigs have had/are having/will have on me.

 

[Koman]

It's not just you OP, I've thought the same thing.

 

[CtryBoy]

Do you honestly envision a future where ecigs are NOT either banned OR regulated?

Let me be clear; I'd PREFER neither. I'd PREFER ecigs were ignored and things continued as they are today.

It's not going to happen, looking at current laws and precedents that's just a fact.
If you think neither will happen, regulation or banning you're deluding yourself. The choice isn't whether they're regulated or not, it's whether they get banned or regulated. I'd MUCH prefer them regulated like most pharmaceuticals with quality control standards, maximum nicotine dosages, packaging requirements, and ingredient lists than banned.

Even if they were raised with tax costs to equal current cigarette prices that will hardly stop people from vaping any more than it stops most people currently from smoking, the only difference is it will be MUCH safer for them. Isn't that something we all want? A viable, safer, substitute to cigarettes? I just see "cheaper" as a side advantage, not as the significant one.

Cheaper is the key in my book for gaining interest in changing behavior in regular smokers. Like someone mentioned earlier there is a natural progression once you do the math. Roll your own, cheaper avoid additives if you like. E-cigs, initial investment like getting a cigarette roller to roll your own, then cheap EL to refill carts/o.

The cost factor really peaked my interest early on and helped give me the motivation to push over the hump so to speak of finding the right vape, which to be honest is the only thing keeping these out of the mainstream. If there was one device which could successfully work for anyone right out of the box they'd already be on the shelf beside regular cigarettes. It is so much easier to buy a carton at the discount store than to go through batteries, atty's, carts, cartomizers, juice flavor, etc, but the cost factor can not be ignored. It was worth it to fight the good fight, do the research, and find what works for me most of the time. Mainly to save a buck, but have to admit cigarettes where starting to make me a little fearful of my health.

Like you I'd prefer neither, mainly because I fear the FDA will confine the available options drastically, like tamper proof carts, etc. No matter what they do, cost could become an issue and further limit the appeal of the alternative to a mainstream smoker. I honestly cant see myself struggling with low nic carts that were not refillable or restricted to one or two flavors and successfully making the leap. Especially without the refilling savings I currently enjoy. As much as I wanted to quit, needed incentive to overcome the hurdles involved. Given how effective the gum and patch were for me, I'd rather the FDA not mess up the one thing that is working for me.

Not saying the health considerations aren't important, cost can really be a great motivator and I'd hate to see the community shrink or fail to grow because regulation/taxes made it even harder to make the switch. Classic case of the government messing with a good thing for no good reason. But given the history of the FDA never having to face the consequences even when they get caught red handed or court ordered to cease and desist makes me prone to bracing for the inevitable while trying to sic a congressman or two on them. Who knows after the election, maybe they will be more interested in not strangling a new industry, but doubt it. Unfortunately we just have to wait and see what the courts do, what action the FDA takes, and fight that. Dont see anything we do as far as self policing swaying them from the typical anti stance they have adopted.

Congressional pressure is the only thing that will ever sway the FDA. They have already demonstrated that they care not for legitimate science, industry efforts, or even what the courts have to say. Right after the election, I'm going to make sure every one of my elected officials is educated at the least and hopefully will poke the FDA in the side and advise them to check their facts before they get egg on their face. Ok now I'm just wishfully thinking outloud. Interesting discussion, so had to add my two cents as well.

 

[Luvs5rugrats]

It seems to me there's a simple solution to all this but maybe I'm missing something. I'm certainly not an expert on anything about this topic.

Here we have a device consisting of a battery with LED on it, a heating element and a cartridge compartment to hold whatever.

Then we have the "juice" consisting of a handful of ingredients. It seems to me, the whole controversy lies on the actual part of this that is causing all the fuss: Nicotine.

So, The FDA can't oversee the device, it's electrical. I can't see how you can ban something for what the consumer might do with it. Not saying they won't, though. I would equate that to banning DVD burners because you might illegally burn movies or music or banning matches because you might use it to burn a house down.

All ingredients, sans the nicotine , can easily be purchased just about anywhere. I can get the flavors all sorts of places. The VG and PG are also very easily obtainable.

What then would be the cause for all this regulation nonsense? Nicotine only. Every day on my idiot box are infomercials with herbal remedies and pills that will supposedly do everything from help you lose weight to give you a bigger **. These are all "not approved by the FDA" and they're everywhere. It seems to me that all the vendors need to do is stop selling the juice or stop putting the nicotine in it or just find a way to sell the flavors, PG and VG separately. Nicotine is not illegal nor is it a controlled substance, so it seems to me that as long as us, the consumer, can legally purchase all the ingredients ourselves, I see absolutely no need for any FDA interference AT ALL. Too bad our government doesn't care what I think and believes it needs to rubber stamp my decisions.

I had no idea what danger these things were in until I started reading all of the crazy articles and FDA reports that have been coming out. I'm 39 years old and I am perfectly capable of making decisions about what I want to put in my own body and I'll be so devastated if this falls under some kind of regulation, even if it's classified as a tobacco product and taxed to death. Neither the device nor the "juice" are tobacco products, whether nicotine is involved or not, so I can't see how it would ever be classified as such, no matter what the "official" purpose for it is, be it a substitute for tobacco or cessation product. The only other option is classifying it as a drug, which they seem to be wanting to do. Take out the drug and what do they have left for ammunition?

I could go buy any given food product right now, eat it and die, whether it's "FDA approved" or not.

And that's my 2 cents

 

[Poppa D]

I agree with the OP.

This is a train wreck waiting to happen. The vendors need to create their safety and users concerns relations.

labeling: nutrients, ingredients, volume
health guides: Cautions, Storage guide lines, who to contact, so on.
product information: Company name and address, Contact phone number for questions

I'm looking at a bottle of water, and it covers this and more.
Train wrecks are very, very devastating.
1-800-IDo-Care

 

[cozzicon]

I agree with the OP.

This is a train wreck waiting to happen. The vendors need to create their safety and users concerns relations.

labeling: nutrients, ingredients, volume
health guides: Cautions, Storage guide lines, who to contact, so on.
product information: Company name and address, Contact phone number for questions

I'm looking at a bottle of water, and it covers this and more.
Train wrecks are very, very devastating.
1-800-IDo-Care

Agreed.

But some makers are doing it. It's not all storm clouds.

Anything can happen at this point.