If you wish to ask questions about our policies and procedures, please post here.
1. Please tell us your "story"? I'm guessing that a lot of members are not familiar with your business story. Stuff like how you got started, why vaping, and any other thoughts you wish to post so members can glean a sense of your business. Please don't be bashful since this is your forum.
2. Your on the other side of the pond and face some regulatory challenges that those of us in the USA may not be aware of. We have the FDA along with local regulators to deal with. What is the regulatory climate like in the UK and what are your concerns? Yes, you can rub your crystal ball and help us understand the global implications of "vaping regulations".
Continued best wishes
/Steve
We have already fully explained our reasoning, earlier in this thread.I have some questions for you.
1. Why was it necessary for you post the results for Five Pawns on your web site instead of just removing the products and a not saying we will no longer carry Five Pawns?
2. You posted: We regularly send random samples of our liquid to an independent UK laboratory for GCMS analysis so you can be certain we are supplying a high quality and consistent product which doesn't contain anything it shouldn't. The tests carried out include nicotine assay, PG/VG percentage and known contaminants including Diacetyl, Acetyl Propionyl, Diethylene Glycol and Ethylene Glycol.
Looking at your test results posted for your cloud 9 liquids I see no such reference to PG/VG. http://www.cloud9vaping.co.uk/WebRo...esults/Classic_BananaDream_150714_BE07544.pdf
Neither Gavin or Rob have called, skyped, or emailed us to discuss these test results. Gavin did respond to our email where we notified him about the test results and indicated that he would like to discuss them in person. Given the experience we'd already had with them, we were keen to keep all further contact and discussions in writing, which is an extremely sensible thing to do in a situation of this kind. However, Keith's last message to Gavin stated that we would be perfectly happy to meet with him at VapeJam to discuss this matter, but despite waiting at their stand for around 30 minutes, he wasn't there.3. Why didn't you meet with Rob from Five Pawns when he called and asked to meet with you in person. Is your business model set up for strictly email only?
Yes, we have been in regular contact with Dr Farsalinos since 2013, and have helped publicise and fund some of his research.4. Five Pawns made it clear how they helped fund Dr.F work. Has Cloud 9 funded any study for vaping safety?
Yes, of course - we've been running tests with them for several years, as have many other vaping retailers.5. Has testing lab you used West Yorkshire Analytic ever tested e-liquids for DA/AP in the past?
I've answered this in question 2.6. Looking over your testing of your e-liquids why can't I find the product on the test result using that name the lab uses? Such as Banana Dream? The same method is used with Five Pawns however on your site you decided to list Five Pawns name.
7. Since Vg is heavier the PG when mixed together would you come to the conclusion that your lab when testing for Five Pawns for PG and VG that the sample wasn't shaken? You told the world Five Pawns Castle long is 76% PG. So are you saying Five Pawns eliquids are mostly PG? Your results clearly show more PG than VG in Five Pawns liquids.
8. This question has nothing to do with eliquids. However since Cloud 9 is determined to sell only safe products can you explain why the iStick 50 watt has been on your site from day one and you must be aware of the the auto fire problems, overheating while charging, and exploding iStick 50's.
Thank you and I will look forward to reply.
I believe my previous post demonstrated with words chosen that I had thought about how this would look. Dr. F. was able to get away with the broad statements and retain trust in his message of DA/AP in liquids that claim none. Your sales policy is that you offer product with none, and that was violated. That there was any, would be the information that would address the reasonable concern of those customers. The specific results are what lead to the current dispute, and not the general information. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but your reasoning here sheds more doubt, perhaps even mistrust, on what Dr. F. provided to the community based on notion that we did not receive specifics. Kind of a catch-22 from the Dr. F. angle.
To me, the idea that you were selling before having the trusted independent lab results in hand is the issue that is on you. You now know not to do that again. Releasing specific lab results, from a vendor who you are not in contact with, is (or was) a gamble, but I don't see how that was going to pay off for you. And I do see it as unreasonable consideration from consumers demanding it, when you are not in contact with the vendor. Would be no different than if same consumers demanded Dr. F. release his full data, to which I'm thinking he won't unless he had okay from all vendors.
We don't believe it's reasonable on any level for individual vapers to have to do their own testing for compounds that are known to be harmful. We also think vapers should have the right to choose whether or not they are happy to take these risks, given that they are choosing harm reduction, which isn't the same as "safe", and as I've said before, they need the information provided to be able to make these choices.And as I've said (elsewhere), customers could do their own testing if they were that concerned, just as you did, and have chosen to do, because you care that much. (Perhaps) all of these same customers were previously met with denial of full disclosure around this issue with release of Dr. F. findings in his study that brought tremendous light to this issue. That vendors claiming zero were instead releasing product that had any was seemingly enough for most to conclude with the position of - we need to know, yes or no, if it is in there. Had you made contact with the vendor, and essentially received their blessing to release your specific results, it would then make sense to publish full results. Without that, it strikes me as a gamble that could backfire, which in reality, it did.
Also as I've noticed elsewhere, your site makes note that some of your tobacco eLiquids that advertise as zero nic may indeed contain some nic, albeit it in trace amounts (less than .02%). Based on your reasoning here, it would seem you ought to have policy that gets ahead of the curve that notes on your sales page, the lab results showing the exact amount of nicotine in your zero nic liquids. For otherwise, customers are denied the tools they could conceivably require to make their own choices.
The split obviously occurs in this situation between you and 5P not being in full contact with what you were ready to release. Desiring to release to maintain integrity around your offerings, and to appease a segment of the vape buying community. That you went in the direction you did, without vendor approval, tells me that Dr. F. could've, arguably should've, done the same thing, otherwise I'm now unclear as to how these same consumers can trust Dr. F.'s previous study. But that is on them to answer for.
Not all consumers are demanding full disclosure. FDA is clearly asking for full disclosure, and if that costs $330,000 per product, so be it. Customers of vaping can then be more assured they are getting the "gold standard" treatment from an agency, that on the surface, is all about consumer safety. I'm quite certain they could point to a demand for that sort of standard, and that this justifies industry being treated as forcefully as possible to live up to that standard.
The way things have been, with little to no standards, has been working fairly well for vaping community up to now. Push too hard on those standards with justifications that all customers demand/deserve this (when the demand part is unlikely not true), and another market will arise where costs are kept down, and standards are lowered to still meet the actual demand, rather than the one based on trumped up concerns of a small segment of consumers.
We removed the product from sale the moment we received the test results from the lab, and immediately started fielding questions about why it had suddenly disappeared from our site. Running as a separate sideline from the Five Pawns issue in particular, we were preparing an article to explain our testing protocol, and the actions we've been taking for the last few years. We felt it was important that the article was clear that this protocol had real purpose and that we were prepared to refuse to stock liquids, and stop stocking liquids if at any time they failed to meet our "diketone free" requirements and that we had already done so on multiple occasions in the past.Hi Lisa,
I will ask the obvious question. There has been speculation on some threads, but i will ask you directly :
What led you to publish the results of your lab tests on 5P liquids ( with as much detail as you are able to provide considering the legal situation ).
Thank You.
I know Gavin went to Vapejam, but I'm amazed you didn't have one of your vendors phone number. I have it and I only order from Five Pawns online. The fact still remains he traveled 8 time zones and was to meet with you and you gave him a total of 30 minutes to be at a certain place. Not having his phone number is in the least suspicious since this was an important matter to Five Pawns. Sorry I don't buy not having his phone number.
Ah I see now why you're confused - you are under the impression we purchased from them directly. This is not the case, they use a distributor in the UK, and so day-to-day contact with the manufacturer directly was not conducted in the way you seem to be thinking it was. As someone else has said, having their office phone number was pointless as it relates to the purchase of this product and would have been pointless in these circumstances too because Gavin was in the UK at that time, and indeed because of the large time difference. In any case, I've been extremely clear and totally honest about what happened, whether you choose to believe me is entirely up to you, and I feel the position you occupy means that you won't believe anything I have to say anyway.I know Gavin went to Vapejam, but I'm amazed you didn't have one of your vendors phone number. I have it and I only order from Five Pawns online. The fact still remains he traveled 8 time zones and was to meet with you and you gave him a total of 30 minutes to be at a certain place. Not having his phone number is in the least suspicious since this was an important matter to Five Pawns. Sorry I don't buy not having his phone number.
In the past, we made it our policy not to stock any liquid that had ever tested positive for any level of DA/AP. We've always made this extremely clear to manufacturers.Perhaps here is a Question you can talk to.
What does Cloud 9 Consider to be Appropriate ppm levels for Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl in the e-Liquids that Cloud 9 sells.
And do you see the levels that someone such as the Electronic Cigarette Trade Association of Canada (ECTA) has set for "No Disclosure", "Disclosure" and "Fail" as Reasonable?
---
"The ECTA standard is a non-detection for these elements. However, there are a couple of threshold levels for both Acetyl Propionyl and Diacetyl into which a result may fall.
- Non-Detection of Pentanedione and Diacetyl is the ECTA standard to which all members must strive to achieve
- < 22 µg/ml for Diacetyl and < 45 µg/ml for Acetyl Propionyl no disclosure - This is a "caution" threshold, though while recommended, is not required for disclosure. Members are required to work towards removing the cause of the compound. Levels in this range are most often attributed to cross-contamination.
- < 100 µg/ml disclosure - This "caution" threshold requires disclosure to consumers if the eliquid remains on the market, and a plan to replace the flavorant with an alternative. Disclosure is required on a website (if applicable), in a Retail Location (if applicable), and optionally on the label of the product (pending stock level depletion)
- > 100 µg/ml (ppm) indicates a "FAIL" - This is above the upper limit and beyond ECTA standards. If an E-Liquid result shows higher than this level the member must immediately stop sale of that product and either discontinue or return the product to their shelves only after the E-Liquid is reformulated and re-tested to show that it has been corrected."
Electronic Cigarette Trade Association (ECTA) of Canada
I refer you to post 22 in this thread where I stated quite clearly that the liquids were returned to their UK distributor.If you think I'm confused I can say everyone is confused including all the members who like your posts as they are clueless too. Never has anyone mentioned a distributor. Did you return the unsold bottles to FP or to your distributor?
I have no issue with you personally and as far as business is conducted I'd say the UK and the EU are hands down better than we are in the USA. I just feel you handled the situation wrong. Oh and thanks for the British invasion as our music was pathetic.
Don't mind at all, happy you were able to advise where Steve can find liquids we don't stock.Steve, have a look at Pink Mule in Spain...they carry Halo and ship world-wide.
Apologies, Lisa...I know this is your sub-forum; hope you don't mind.
We removed the product from sale the moment we received the test results from the lab, and immediately started fielding questions about why it had suddenly disappeared from our site. Running as a separate sideline from the Five Pawns issue in particular, we were preparing an article to explain our testing protocol, and the actions we've been taking for the last few years. We felt it was important that the article was clear that this protocol had real purpose and that we were prepared to refuse to stock liquids, and stop stocking liquids if at any time they failed to meet our "diketone free" requirements and that we had already done so on multiple occasions in the past.
We did not name the actual products we'd removed from sale at this point, which of course only lead to requests to disclose which liquids we had removed for this reason.
By this time, nearly 8 weeks had passed since we first received the Five Pawns results, and notified them. No action had been taken, no public disclosure had been made, and they would not discuss the matter with us in writing, apart from authorising their UK distributor to accept the return of all the product for a complete refund.
All throughout this time, we'd been uncomfortably keeping this information to ourselves. We received advice from several industry experts including Dr Farsalinos, and all advice was to publish what we had, because it was in the public interest.
So, in response to this clamour for information, and in accordance with our discomfort at keeping the information quiet up to this point, we named all those liquids we had removed because they contained or were suspected of containing either Diacetyl, Acetyl Propionyl, or both, and the list was not limited to Five Pawns liquids.
Most of the rest of what happened is common knowledge.
suffice it to say, we will never again place a new liquid on the market without first having test results from a reputable lab in our hands.
No, that's not what we mean to purport. I believe I was quite clear when I said that releasing our results without the actual data to back them up, might have made them subject to doubt.Disagree due to the principle that science is (allegedly) science. This would be admission that your results are subject to doubt, via commercial interests. Is this what you mean to purport?
I understand it's your view they are comparable, and we disagree, for many reasons. I have explained some of our thought processes, which were informed by customer demands for information. I cannot and will not comment further on someone elses thought processes and reasoning, and further belabouring this point as it relates to someone elses work is beyond the scope of this thread.Dr. F.'s study was crowd funded by either industry and/or consumers. It is comparable.
All interesting speculation that is what you are basing your reason to publish your own results.
Had to do some digging, but here is link to the thread regarding Dr. F. study and am linking to first post I could find by Dr. F. where he states rationale for not disclosing the names. As I read more of the thread, I would say the rationale for not disclosing was: it would be perceived as targeting a specific vendor (or small segment of vendors) when greater than 70% are engaged in the (perceived) problem.
By pay off, I specifically meant "keeping the customers informed." I don't see how that was going to work for you when you are targeting a vendor with results that the vendor was very likely to dispute. That they did dispute it, perceived it as out of line by you, backs up what I am conveying. That consumers are arguably less informed about specifics now, by you releasing specifics, is what I will keep coming back to as to how this would backfire against you. I get that you might say you don't really care if it backfires against you, as long as the customer is informed, but I've got to say that I don't see the consumer as being any more informed. With regards to your business model, the information that a reasonably concerned consumer can draw from this is that C9 will be more diligent in testing all products they receive and will not allow themselves to be put in the position they felt 5P put them in (though reality, which you accept, is that you put yourself in this position).
Again, I think this is an area where our beliefs are unlikely to align.Then you are arguing for individual vapers to ultimately place trust in vendors / manufacturers. This takes consumers back to where things were in 2011 with regards to this issue. How'd that work out for consumers? I don't get how a consumer would ever be able to claim they know (for sure) if they don't do own testing. But IMO, this is really not a debatable point. Some want to argue for faith over science, while basing a substantial amount of their DA/AP position on "what science tells us." (Actual) science tells us to repeat the tests, to verify results. That you, or anyone, would call it unreasonable for individual vapers to do their own testing strikes me as an issue that will never, ever, be resolved to satisfactorily level of consumers. Or akin to the satisfaction vapers enjoyed in say 2012 when telling everyone that studies show this is 100 times less harmful than smoking, but during a period when vendors were claiming one thing, while actual data would've shown anyone, using science, otherwise. A caring consumer, truly interested in this issue, could've learned about their favorite vendors specific results in 2012, but instead chose trust as the guiding factor. Sound familiar C9?
I apologize in advance, but i find it hard to believe there is zero nic in all your zero nic liquids, based on what this wording is stating:
This implies that your zero liquids could plausibly test for positive traces above zero, and below 0.01%. Otherwise, why stipulate with the parenthetical 0.01% and with the "traces" wording. Why not state what you conveyed in this post, "There is no nicotine in any of our zero liquids currently for sale?"
And I would say that the interest ought to be met with all businesses being on same page when they are looking to present the information, especially if naming names. Otherwise, it will come across, as it did in this situation, like there is discord between vaping businesses, and the consumer is essentially invited to take sides with one vaping business over another. There is a visible divide in the community over this, and I would say a majority favor what you did. I do not. I see it as targeting when targeting via specifics was not necessary, and not really helpful. I think your actions warranted legal guns being aimed right back at you for the audacity in doing what you did. That you won't keep your data public, based on the principle of ethics you cite, demonstrates that (your) ethics matter up to a point, and staying in business matters a little more. I do not blame you, even a smidgeon, for wanting to stay in business. I'm glad you exist in the community going forward. But the ethics around this situation is questionable. That you learned your lesson and accept responsibility for the rather significant error you made (via trusting) does give me comfort in knowing you are highly unlikely to target more vendors going forward.
Hi SomeTexan, we're not scared, it's just always prudent to be cautious in these situations. Companies can sue for anything, and both sides end up losing, regardless of who wins.Please don't be scared of 5 pawns' threats. Companies like you that are looking out for the vaping community help us avoid government regulation. Companies like 5 pawns and their fanboys make us all look bad. They can't sue you for posting the results of tests done by a real lab. They could possibly go after the lab, but that would be fruitless and a huge waste of their money.