Question about Tobacco Extracted Juices

[nuttyriv3r]

Hey all,

As I enjoy my bottle of Grumpy's Hooch with another on the way, I got to thinking how it tastes a helluva lot like some good Levi Garrett soaked in PG. I was wondering if anybody out there knows the process of making an authentic tobacco flavored juice? I ask because it really does taste like tobacco, it even gives that little acrid sting in the throat like when you use chewing tobacco. If these are made by soaking real tobacco or something, I am wondering if that is essentially the same as smoking vaporized tobacco? I mean, wouldn't the process sort of pull all of the additives into the juice and defeat the purpose of avoiding tobacco products? I understand it is small concentrated amounts and there is no combustion (carbon monoxide), but just thought it be interesting to get some thoughts on the matter.

So anybody make their own authentic tobacco juice or know what the process is?

 

[gthompson]

When you get your 5 posts in, join us here

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-liquid-discussion/274904-natural-tobaccos.html

 

[nuttyriv3r]

Ahh, now that is a monster thread...hehe. Thanks.

 

[Dougiestyle]

Yes, tobacco can be extracted. I DIY my e-liquids and have natural tobacco extract flavoring. Red Man Gold Blend to be exact. I used to buy about a pack per year just for the chew. I enjoyed the flavor, but it's a gross indulgence. Now, I vape it.

 

[gthompson]

To answer your question, the most popular forms of extraction are PG (and/or VG) maceration, Co2 extraction, and OEA (organic ethyl alcohol) maceration. None of these methods get the additives (or at least any significant percentage of them) and there are several of the NET vendors that have the test results to prove that.

 

[nuttyriv3r]

To answer your question, the most popular forms of extraction are PG (and/or VG) maceration, Co2 extraction, and OEA (organic ethyl alcohol) maceration. None of these methods get the additives (or at least any significant percentage of them) and there are several of the NET vendors that have the test results to prove that.

Ah, perfect. Thanks for the info. maceration is the keyword here I needed. Finding tons of info on the subject now.

 

[nuttyriv3r]

None of these methods get the additives (or at least any significant percentage of them) and there are several of the NET vendors that have the test results to prove that.

Wound up at this blog: Tobacco Truth

Has a lot of interesting information backed by scientific references regarding smokeless tobacco. I suppose the specific culprit to be concerned about are TSNA's and apparently we're talking nanogram quantities. He mainly focuses on snus and smokeless alternatives because that is where the science is currently, but I figure somewhere in the archives is information on juice.

He has thise statement:

ACS harm reduction messages were false then and are false now. The organization continues to deny almost 60 million American tobacco users truthful information about smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes.

Which seems to indicate he lumps e-cigs into a safer category.

Good post on TSNA's as well: More Evidence That Smokeless Tobacco Products in the U.S. Have Low TSNA Levels

And here's a statement from Concept Liquids and El Toro juice:

Real tobacco eLiquid & TSNA's
Hi Everybody. The fact that I am not making liquids in my back room, but I am making liquids for a huge number of people out there has forced me and all the House of Liquid and Concept Liquids to search a lot into the matter, request the help of distinctive chemists and conduct very expensive analysis to find what is going on.

The fact is, that TSNA's (tobacco specific nitrosomines) are powerful carcinogens. TSNA's are found in the nicotine and not in the tobacco despite their name. In a way they are a tobacco by-product because they are found in the nicotine that is mainly in the tobacco plants. That means any liquid with artificial or natural extracts will have the same amount of TSNA's if they share the same amount of nicotine from the same supplier. There is no nicotine eLiquid out there without TSNA's considering that unfortunately there is not a known technique to date to remove TSNA's from the nicotine. Every single nicotine contained product in the market including official NHS treatments such as patches, inhalers, sprays, tablets contains similar amounts of TSNA's as a synthetic made eliquid or a naturally made one. Anyone that is trying to sell nicotine eLiquids without TSNA's is simply lying

The good news is that TSNA's in eliquid vaping are in such small quantities that the scientists are considering them as traces and not worth to be mentioned as they cannot contribute to cancer. Actual smoking has a thousand stronger reasons to be dangerous other than nitrosomines with the tar being responsible for 95% of deaths related to smoking. In fact, in the nicotine contained in any eliquid the nitrosomines are in such small quantities that it is laughable even to be considered a threat to health. that is not my opinion but a scientist's opinion. To give you an example in one plastic container that it wasn't food or medicine grade we have found carcinogenic nitrosomines (not TSNA's) 600 more than in nicotine.

As I said before we have concluded a quite large scale investigation into the whole subject to make sure that our products made out of steeped tobacco are safe. In fact our Production Lab Concept Liquids - High quality custom made wholesale e liquids has commissioned a large number of different chemical analysis on each of our products to get the facts right. I am actually planning to put over in the houseofliquid site several different analysis for each of of El Toro products including individual ingredient analysis such as VG, PG and Nicotine.

Going back to El Toro and steeping I can tell you that El Toro pure tobacco steeped liquid has no more nitrosomines than any other natural or synthetic liquid in the market. In fact, I can prove that any 12mg El Toro has less TSNA's than any 18mg tobacco liquid in the market. And I mean any.

To simplify matters:

Q: Are eLiquids carcinogenic?
A: Even though all nicotine eLiquids contain TSNA's that are powerful carcinogenics THEY CANNOT be described as carcinogenic because the levels of TSNA's are so small that most serious scientists agree that are not a threat to human health neither can contribute to cancer.

Q: Are El Toro liquids or other steeped liquids carcinogenic or more dangerous to any other synthetic or natural nicotine eLiquid in the market because are made by steeping real tobaccos?
A: NO THEY ARE NOT. We have contacted a series of chemical analysis in all El Toro liquids and the results are compatible point by point (including TSNA's) to all leading synthetic or natural eLiquids in the market.

Q: Are all quality liquids in the market contain the same or similar levels of TSNA's regardless if they are natural, synthetic, or real tobacco made"
A: YES. As i said the TSNA's are in the nicotine. I cannot speak for all eLiquids out there but about 95% of eLiquid companies and makers around the world and UK are using the same few nicotine suppliers.
Personally I have used over the years 4 different nicotine suppliers from around the globe. I don't think they are many more around anyway! Their TSNA results are very close to be consider different. Over the last 6 months we are using the European nicotine manufacturer that is considered to be the best in the world, the same one that supplies nicotine to the leading brand of nicotine-replacement therapy products found in all pharmacies!!!! Their TSNA readings are similar with the rest.


Kind regards
eBaron

I'm a noob, and started pondering the idea that we're still getting toxic stuff if we're extracting nicotine and flavor from actual tobacco, but I suppose that isn't the case.

 

[nuttyriv3r]

hehe, my first double post

 

[nuttyriv3r]

This Tobacco Truth blog is great.

Check this post out:
"The FDA Crusade Against E-Cigarettes"

On July 22, 2009, the FDA released the results of laboratory tests of e-cigarettes, which were conducted by the Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. In a press release, the FDA said: “These tests indicate that these products contained detectable levels of known carcinogens…” The FDA report can be downloaded here.

For many years, I have investigated the cancer risks of cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco use. As I wrote in a recent post, the FDA has never regulated nicotine effectively, and the agency had previously signaled its intention to ban e-cigarettes. So while the agency’s new analysis of e-cigarettes comes as no surprise, it does undermine the assumption that the FDA bases it oversight activities purely on scientific principles.

The FDA analyzed 18 cartridges from two e-cigarette manufacturers, Smoking Everywhere and Njoy (there are many other manufacturers). With respect to “carcinogens,” the agency looked at four tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) with very long chemical names; I’ll abbreviate the agents here as NNN, NNK, NAT and NAB.

I have some experience with TSNAs, since I participated in a project with a scientist at the Swedish National Food Administration to measure the levels of these agents in smokeless tobacco products. Our research showed that TSNAs are present in most American tobacco products at extremely low levels, about 0.1 to 12 parts per million by weight. At this level of TSNAs, someone who puts 1 gram (about 1/28th of an ounce) of smokeless tobacco in his mouth is exposed to, at most, about 10 one-millionths of a gram of TSNAs. There is abundant scientific evidence that exposure at this minuscule level is not associated with ANY cancer in smokeless tobacco users.

The FDA analyzed 14 products from Smoking Everywhere, but the agency only reported the TSNA levels for 7 of those products. Why did the FDA test only half of the company’s products for carcinogens? And how did they choose those products? There are some clues in the report. First, the products that weren’t tested simply had blank boxes in the results chart. A footnote says, “Open boxes indicate the sample was not available for testing.” Another note in the methods section admitted that “…not all sample lots were available for analysis…as they were consumed in other testing.” In other words, the FDA didn’t purchase enough of the products to conduct the testing in a systematic and scientific manner. Maybe it’s a budget problem. On the Smoking Everywhere website cartridges are $9.99 each.

The FDA tested 3 out of 4 Njoy products for TSNAs.

What the FDA didn’t test is even more important than what the agency tested. The report noted that the “Nicotrol Inhaler, 10mg cartridge was used as a control for some test methods.” That inhaler is a pharmaceutical nicotine product that is regulated by the FDA, but the agency didn’t test the product for TSNAs. This is a critical omission, because in 2006 a published research study revealed that pharmaceutical nicotine products contain TSNAs. In fact, it’s been known for almost 20 years that nicotine medications contain TSNAs.

Why did the FDA analyze e-cigarettes for carcinogens, when there is no evidence the agency ever conducted carcinogen studies of products that they have regulated for over 20 years? Is it possible that the FDA approved medicines that contained TSNAs, but the agency is now disapproving e-cigarettes because they contain the same contaminants? To answer this important question, we have to know how high – or how low – the TSNA levels are in these products.

Unfortunately, the agency did not report TSNA levels. Instead, it reported that TSNAs were either “Detected” or “Not Detected,” which is entirely inadequate. For hundreds of years, one of the basic tenets of medicine has been “the dose makes the poison.” Mere detection of a contaminant is meaningless; the critical question is: At what concentration is it present?

So what does “Detected” mean in the FDA analysis? In other words, what was the lowest TSNA concentration that the test detected?

As I noted earlier, many tobacco products have TSNA levels in the single-digit parts per million range, a level at which there is no scientific evidence that TSNAs are harmful. According to the report, the FDA used an analytic method published in 2008. The report notes that “the published method is quite sensitive for the TSNAs…” and it goes on to explain that the level of detection is 40 parts per TRILLION.

The implications of this are astounding. Apparently, the FDA tested e-cigarette samples using a method that detects TSNAs at about 1 million times lower concentrations than are even possibly related to human health.

In summary, the FDA tested e-cigarettes for TSNAs using a questionable sampling regimen, and methods that were so sensitive that the results may have no possible significance to users. The agency failed to report specific levels of these contaminants, and it has failed to conduct similar testing of nicotine medicines that have been sold in the U.S. for over 20 years.

These are not the actions of an agency that is science-based and consumer-focused. These pseudo-scientific actions are clearly intended to form the justification for banning a category of products that are probably 99.9% safer than cigarettes. According to Dr. Murray Laugesen, a respected New Zealand researcher, “Simply banning e-cigarettes will simply consign thousands of e-smokers back to smoking tobacco and an early death.”

The FDA and anti-tobacco extremists who support it should be held accountable for their prohibitionist actions.

The FDA has a legitimate interest in two matters involving e-cigarettes: assuring that cartridges contain the advertised quantity of nicotine, and that they do not contain contaminants.

If you search for e-cigarette, he has 8 pages of articles regarding them.

 

[gthompson]

The disinformation put out there by the ANTZ is astounding isn't it?

 

[nuttyriv3r]

My research is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund.

There's something that hits me wrong about that admission. I appreciate his honesty, though. Can't say as much for the respected FDA establishment.