Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs

[CarolT]

Gasping for Action

It's been known for years that diacetyl destroys lungs. So why is it still harming coffee workers and allowed in e-cigarettes?

The yellow liquid used to flavor candy, chips, coffee and e-cigarettes smells and tastes like butter. It's hard to tell from looking at it that it can obliterate your lungs if you breathe it in.

Watchdog Report - Gasping for Action

I've posted responses in the comments, including a link to a review article showing it's almost exclusively an occupational hazard.
Diacetyl exposure as a pneumotoxic factor: a review. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[skoony]

thanks for the post.
here is an article that gives a pretty good over view of the mater.

What's All The Fuss About Diacetyl? | Cig Buyer.com
regards
mike

 

[CarolT]

Heh heh, it's not just found naturally in foods!

"Diacetyl (2,3-butanedione) is a key contributor to unpleasant odors emanating from the axillae, feet, and head regions. To investigate the mechanism of diacetyl generation on human skin, resident skin bacteria were tested for the ability to produce diacetyl via metabolism of the main organic acids contained in human sweat. L-lactate metabolism by Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis produced the highest amounts of diacetyl, as measured by high-performance liquid chromatography." (Suppression of microbial metabolic pathways inhibits the generation of the human body odor component diacetyl by Staphylococcus spp. Hara T. et al. PLoS One 2014 Nov 12;9(11):e111833.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/25390046/

So, NIOSH will have to regulate acceptable levels of BO next?

 

[Endor]

Although I agree that this is obviously a left-leaning article (as evidenced by the "pity the poor immigrant getting screwed by those evil capitalists just trying to make an honest living" sob story), I'll add my two cents that may be a bit controversial.

As a community, we should not downplay the presence of diacetyl in our eliquids. Yes, it is safe to eat or drink and is naturally present in tons of foods and drinks. Yes, it is present in cigarette smoke, and apparently present in body odor too.

But It is well documented that it is not safe to inhale over long periods of time. Although no cases of 'popcorn lung' have been reported in vapers at this point, the truth is, none of us have been vaping for 10+ years yet.... nobody can say for 100% certainty that vaping 10mls of vanilla custard every day for 10 years WON'T have an impact on our lung function.

Ignoring it or simply waving our arms at it is not a defensible position, in my opinion, and dilutes our message that vaping mitigates risk.

Me? I try to avoid using flavors likely to have it as an ADV. A sweet treat vape now and then... yeah, that's probably okay.

 

[Jman8]

Diacetyl is in traditional smokes. Still think vapers have not been inhaling it for 10+ years?

This article is junk IMO. It is using one thing (coffee vapor and diacetyl) to bash lack of regulations on vaping.

You certainly don't have to ignore this issue, but to elevate it to rationalization for strong regulations, without 10+ years of study on inhalation of its substitute strikes me as "doing the work of opposition for them, while pretending to be on the side of vapers."

 

[AndriaD]

Although I agree that this is obviously a left-leaning article (as evidenced by the "pity the poor immigrant getting screwed by those evil capitalists just trying to make an honest living" sob story), I'll add my two cents that may be a bit controversial.

As a community, we should not downplay the presence of diacetyl in our eliquids. Yes, it is safe to eat or drink and is naturally present in tons of foods and drinks. Yes, it is present in cigarette smoke, and apparently present in body odor too.

But It is well documented that it is not safe to inhale over long periods of time. Although no cases of 'popcorn lung' have been reported in vapers at this point, the truth is, none of us have been vaping for 10+ years yet.... nobody can say for 100% certainty that vaping 10mls of vanilla custard every day for 10 years WON'T have an impact on our lung function.

Ignoring it or simply waving our arms at it is not a defensible position, in my opinion, and dilutes our message that vaping mitigates risk.

Me? I try to avoid using flavors likely to have it as an ADV. A sweet treat vape now and then... yeah, that's probably okay.

Agree, though my approach is to DIY, and very carefully screen the flavors I use, for the presence of ANY diketones. I may not avoid them all 100%, but hopefully I may keep my exposure down to a BARE minimum, because you're right, we don't know yet, and by the time we do, it'll be too late for fixing, for those with obliterated lungs. I already have asthma, I know how terrifying it is to not be able to breathe, so I'm doing my damndest to try and keep all diketones out of my vapes. I don't even like the smell of that stuff, when my husband pops popcorn in the microwave. eeeuuuwww!!!

Andria

 

[CarolT]

...But It is well documented that it is not safe to inhale over long periods of time.

Then where's the link to that documentation? I posted a link to a recent review article. The article shows that it's nearly all an occupational exposure problem, and even then only a small number of workers are affected. The real issue with this news article is that it's just plain deceitful. It uses emotional manipulation and purposely tries to equate high occupational exposures with lower non-occupational ones. You seem to want everyone to surrender to those lies.

 

[Endor]

Diacetyl is in traditional smokes. Still think vapers have not been inhaling it for 10+ years?

Yep. My mother-and-law died of COPD/emphysema from smoking. Could it be due to the diacetyl? Who knows. My intent is not to be confrontational, but merely to say that is not a valid argument.

This article is junk IMO. It is using one thing (coffee vapor and diacetyl) to bash lack of regulations on vaping.

You certainly don't have to ignore this issue, but to elevate it to rationalization for strong regulations, without 10+ years of study on inhalation of its substitute strikes me as "doing the work of opposition for them, while pretending to be on the side of vapers."

We agree here, certainly this is another story in a long line of stories bashing the lack of regulations. I'm not debating that.

My contention is that we, as a community, shouldn't just dismiss these risks out of hand. More real studies are absolutely needed on vaping. We continue to beat the drum that 'vaping is safer', yet the argument from policy makers is still 'we don't know that for sure'. In today's world, not knowing is enough to 'err on the side of caution' and start banning things (especially things that look like smoking, which the anti-tobacco movement has successfully brainwashed the public against). That is horrible policy, I agree, but it is a very unfortunate fact of life today. It doesn't help our argument if we just wave these things away.

 

[Endor]

Then where's the link to that documentation? I posted a link to a recent review article. The article shows that it's nearly all an occupational exposure problem, and even then only a small number of workers are affected. The real issue with this news article is that it's just plain deceitful. It uses emotional manipulation and purposely tries to equate high occupational exposures with lower non-occupational ones. You seem to want everyone to surrender to those lies.

A Google search for either 'popcorn lung' or 'diacetyl inhalation' comes up with more than enough documentation to show that the medical community agrees it is an issue.

And yes, it is definitely an industrial issue, and I clearly see that this article had an agenda.

My point was not to suggest that everybody surrender to the lies on this, either. I understand that the study Dr. Farsalinos performed on diacetyl in e-liquids showed the amount present to be magnitudes less than in tobacco smoke. But and even he said that the presence represented an 'avoidable risk'.

My point was that vaping is at a very critical crossroads right now. We should not dismiss these risks out of hand, claiming an article is just 'bashing e-cigarettes again'. Remember that policy makers read these articles, and often times believe them (especially when it fits their world view). Instead, we should be demanding that e-liquid vendors actively self-regulate to remove as many risks as possible, because the alternative is a) a dilution of our message the vaping is safe for long-term use, and b) more articles like this that ends up driving heavy-handed government regulation.

 

[DrMA]

medical community "agrees" on lots of inane things, because those who disagree get fired:
http://ep-ology.blogspot.com/2010/08/ucla-school-of-public-health-votes-to.html

 

[Jman8]

Yep. My mother-and-law died of COPD/emphysema from smoking. Could it be due to the diacetyl? Who knows. My intent is not to be confrontational, but merely to say that is not a valid argument.

What is not a valid argument? That smokes have diacetyl and that because vapers have been inhaling it for 10+ years without showing signs of popcorn lung, then it is not the huge concern some make it out to be? If yes, then I disagree and am not understanding how you are concluding otherwise.

We agree here, certainly this is another story in a long line of stories bashing the lack of regulations. I'm not debating that.

My contention is that we, as a community, shouldn't just dismiss these risks out of hand. More real studies are absolutely needed on vaping. We continue to beat the drum that 'vaping is safer', yet the argument from policy makers is still 'we don't know that for sure'. In today's world, not knowing is enough to 'err on the side of caution' and start banning things (especially things that look like smoking, which the anti-tobacco movement has successfully brainwashed the public against). That is horrible policy, I agree, but it is a very unfortunate fact of life today. It doesn't help our argument if we just wave these things away.

I'm yet to see any risk dismissed out of hand by the vaping community. We arguably spend more time on risks and actually analyzing than all of the modern day scientists combined. I really don't see that as exaggeration.

Suggesting that we wave things away is contrary to what occurs in the vaping community. If that can be established for you within this discussion, then perhaps you'll understand my contention. I see further science finding more risks, and having incentive to do so. I'm not sure if neutral science exists for vaping. We have scientists that we think are neutral but opposition either paints them as biased or dismisses their findings based on that perception. We see ANTZ leaning science on vaping as biased, and when we do our scrutinizing of the data (ya know, where we are doing the opposite of dismissiveness), we routinely see them taking minuscule amount of risk and present conclusions that the danger is extremely high. Some arguing that the danger is higher than smokes. Formaldehyde being latest of these sort of things, only to be debunked within a month (or less). Anti-freeze from 2011-ish is another example. I'd even add diacetyl to the list, but as many vapers are on board with this being "serious risk," it becomes an endless debate on what we think we know/understand vs. what we don't quite know yet, nor understand how the replacement for diacetyl will really work for us say 10+ years from now.

What if I want diacetyl in my vape? In today's world, this seems like no problem. In the one where heavy restrictions are called forth, then not so easy to obtain, perhaps impossible. What if I'm the chicken little screaming about the replacement being in the "we don't know" category and "needs 10+ more years of studying" before it can be legally sold? Methinks that'll be dismissed because vapers will be so scared (or really brainwashed) into thinking anything is better than inhaling diacetyl. And if it isn't me saying this, rest assured that ANTZ will be saying this. Pick a chemical component of vaping stuff, any chemical component and rest assured that ANTZ leaning scientist will be right there willing and able to make certain everyone is aware of the (teeny tiny) risk associated with it, that will be treated as far far worse than whatever smoking was doing to the human body.

 

[Danie06]

Then where's the link to that documentation? I posted a link to a recent review article. The article shows that it's nearly all an occupational exposure problem, and even then only a small number of workers are affected. The real issue with this news article is that it's just plain deceitful. It uses emotional manipulation and purposely tries to equate high occupational exposures with lower non-occupational ones. You seem to want everyone to surrender to those lies.

Just some links:

http://gfn.net.co/downloads/2014/posters/122 Farsalinos - DA_AP.pdf
Evaluation of electronic cigarette liquids and aerosol for the presence of selected inhalation toxins
Respiratory Toxicologic Pathology of Inhaled Diacetyl in Sprague-Dawley Rats

Best discussion though, on this very mb:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/z-old-stickies/517858-donate-dr-farsalinos-new-study.html

Personally I dont want to vape any diacetyl or some of the other substances associated with it like acetyl propionyl etc. I think everyone should just make his or her own decision but when someone like Farsalinos, who has done so much excellent research and works so hard for the vaping community, warns us about diacetyl, Im not gonna ignore that.
No one at this point can say with certainty that diacetyl in e-liquid will harm us or that it wont.

The fact we've all been smoking it, doesnt really prove that its harmless since Farsalinos and co are suggesting diacetyl in smoke might be what causes copd.
Might...meaning: there is no 100% certainty about that, but then, there isnt 100% certainty it doesnt cause copd either. We just dont know that with certainty yet.
As I said: everyone can make up his/ her own mind, but I rather avoid that crap in my liquids.

Im not commenting on the article btw, but it was only a matter of time before some news report or article would start to make a big fuss about diacetyl in e-liquids, Im surprised it took them this long.

 

[Kent C]

medical community "agrees" on lots of inane things, because those who disagree get fired:
http://ep-ology.blogspot.com/2010/08/ucla-school-of-public-health-votes-to.html

They used to fire those egg/cholesterol deniers. Now they'll likely fire those who still think eggs cause cholesterol Same with certain fats and butter is better for you than margarine.

Butter, red meat not so bad for you after all? - CBS News
Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis -- Harcombe et al. 2 (1) -- Open Heart

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-first-move-against-sugar-3.html#post13745331

 

[CarolT]

My mother-and-law died of COPD/emphysema from smoking.

Except she might really have died of COPD/emphysema from cytomegalovirus. Those CD4+CD28null T cells they found just happen to be absolutely specific for CMV infection. Nothing else causes them. They have been observed to arise during primary CMV infection, and they're found only among those who are CMV-positive. The anti-smokers' bogus studies based on lifestyle questionnaires merely exploit the fact that smokers are more likely to have been exposed to CMV for socioeconomic reasons. And less-wealthy people are more likely to have been infected during childhood, before they began smoking.
Cytomegalovirus Is Implicated in COPD
Also, diacetyl is blamed for bronchiolitis obliterans, which is not the same thing as COPD.

 

[CarolT]

The fact we've all been smoking it, doesnt really prove that its harmless since Farsalinos and co are suggesting diacetyl in smoke might be what causes copd.

Anybody trying to claim that something causes COPD had better account for the presence of T cells that are absolutely specific for cytomegalovirus infection first.
Cytomegalovirus Is Implicated in COPD

As it says in this review article: "There are a number of differences between bronchiolitis obliterans and other more common obstructive lung diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). For example, in asthma, the degree of airway obstruction expressed by the FEV1/FVC ratio is not long lasting and alters from day to day. Furthermore, FEV1 values return to normal when treating asthma with short-term bronchiole dilators. Moreover, COPD nearly always results in decreased diffusion capacity of the lungs for carbon dioxide (CO2) together with excessive reactivity of respiratory tract. These described symptoms are not characteristic features of bronchiolitis obliterans. This condition can be distinguished from fibrotic changes of the lung, such as those in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or asbestosis by means of impairment of air flow but not FVC value. Notwithstanding, during the early disease stage, the TLC value is raised however, when fibrotic lung changes occur, this indicator becomes lowered." (download from here)
Diacetyl exposure as a pneumotoxic factor: a review. - PubMed - NCBI

As acknowledged in your poster pdf, bronchiolitis obliterans is a rare clinical syndrome. The very fact that it's rare shows that exposures outside particular workplaces are very unlikely to be responsible for it.

 

[CarolT]

There's one big problem with donating for research that only looks at one thing, such as e-cigs (or cigarettes). Namely, that it cannot discover whether something else is really to blame, such as cytomegalovirus in COPD. Or that something else is involved, such as a rare MHC allele that results in chronic beryllium disease.
Structural basis of chronic beryllium disease: linking allergic hyp... - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Endor]

What if I want diacetyl in my vape? In today's world, this seems like no problem. In the one where heavy restrictions are called forth, then not so easy to obtain, perhaps impossible. What if I'm the chicken little screaming about the replacement being in the "we don't know" category and "needs 10+ more years of studying" before it can be legally sold? Methinks that'll be dismissed because vapers will be so scared (or really brainwashed) into thinking anything is better than inhaling diacetyl. And if it isn't me saying this, rest assured that ANTZ will be saying this. Pick a chemical component of vaping stuff, any chemical component and rest assured that ANTZ leaning scientist will be right there willing and able to make certain everyone is aware of the (teeny tiny) risk associated with it, that will be treated as far far worse than whatever smoking was doing to the human body.

Jman, very well thought post (as all of yours are on these topics, which I very much respect).

This paragraph is the exact reason I stirred the pot a bit on my original post. The rhetoric against vaping has ramped up considerably, and I think for various reasons: anti-tobacco activists who view anything to do with nicotine or tobacco to be evil and want to control your life (aka ANTZ), governments who are losing tax dollars and risk MSA bond defaults, aggressive government agencies who want to over-regulate everything to justify their existence and bloated bureaucracies, university professors who get grant money to discredit nicotine use (we know damn well an example of that)... the list goes on.

Your paragraph above discussed the typical ANTZ strategy, which is dead-on correct. Although we can often discredit many of the lies, when we knowingly allow a potentially risky substance to exist in e-liquid and do not self-regulate, we are merely adding fuel to that fire.

I'd also like to address another point you raised. Perhaps using the phrase "dismissed out of hand" was not accurate on my part. I do believe that most of us here, especially us longer-term vapers who are active in the community, deeply care about mitigating risk. All the older threads about the risk of silica, SS mesh, etc that have hundreds of posts indicate that. A better way to say that would be: with the constant barrage of attacks, we can't afford to be complacent right now and merely dismiss points in articles like this because they have a strong 'progressive' bias... especially when there is some validity to the point, albeit probably very minor and significantly less risky than what we were doing before we vaped (which, as you said, doesn't matter one iota to the rabid ANTZ).

Now, do I seriously think that having small amounts of these compounds in my vape is going to cause mass popcorn lung amongst vapers? No, I do not. I agree with Carol on that point. Do I think COPD is caused by diactetyl in cigarettes? No clue, as I'm not a doctor. My goal in converting from smoking to vaping was to mitigate as much risk as I can, and that's also a promise I made to my family. Because of that, I personally try to avoid frequent vaping of flavors that are likely to contain larger quantities of it, simply to mitigate risk... as hard as that is, because custard-type flavors are just wonderful.

 

[Endor]

They used to fire those egg/cholesterol deniers. Now they'll likely fire those who still think eggs cause cholesterol Same with certain fats and butter is better for you than margarine.

Butter, red meat not so bad for you after all? - CBS News
Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis -- Harcombe et al. 2 (1) -- Open Heart

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-first-move-against-sugar-3.html#post13745331

...which is why I have often said, the anti-tobacco movement in this country was a slippery slope. The same tactics used to demonize tobacco (and relegate smokers to 2nd-class citizens, with vapers not far behind) can easily be applied to other things they view as bad for you.

I've often told my wife that I can see these people going after fatty foods, red meat, gluten, etc. in our lifetimes.

Heck, they are already doing it with sugary sodas. Why stop now?

 

[DrMA]

They used to fire those egg/cholesterol deniers. Now they'll likely fire those who still think eggs cause cholesterol Same with certain fats and butter is better for you than margarine.

Butter, red meat not so bad for you after all? - CBS News
Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis -- Harcombe et al. 2 (1) -- Open Heart

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-first-move-against-sugar-3.html#post13745331

It's even worse than that. If we had listened to the "health" fundamentalists diet advice in the '80's we'd all be dead. Time to fire these parasites and use the funds for something actually useful, like subsidies for vape gear

 

[Jman8]

My goal in converting from smoking to vaping was to mitigate as much risk as I can, and that's also a promise I made to my family. Because of that, I personally try to avoid frequent vaping of flavors that are likely to contain larger quantities of it, simply to mitigate risk... as hard as that is, because custard-type flavors are just wonderful.

Appreciated your post.

Using this quoted portion to continue to dialogue.

My understanding from Farsalino's work is that diacetyl is in a whole lot more than custard-type flavors and is not something that is added. Instead it is natural byproduct for many flavors. It can be removed (and thus avoided). If anyone wishes to avoid it, I respect that decision. But when anyone suggests the industry must avoid it, I feel it is ripe for discussion/debate and the same hard hitting questions that are applied to "why include diacetyl in a vape when it can just as easily be removed?" ought to be applied.

My questioning on this topic does wonder how well studied any/all replacement substances are. It seems like it is simply "anything is better than inhaling diacetyl" is the pervasive thinking, when it is plausible that there could be many things worse than inhaling diacetyl.

I also question how a vaper would know for sure what is in their vape. I actually contend this point with what I consider to be actual science and not faith. I think many have faith (or trust) in lab reports done by third party. I think that is fine, but ought to be understood as closer to faith than science. My contention is that unless you are willing / able to do own lab studies, then you won't know for sure. Thus ultimate responsibility for making sound decision rests on each individual with this sort of concern, and not on industry trying to cater to the health whims of each and every consumer. I observe that many concerned vapers don't like this consideration because they are either unable or unwilling to pay for each and every flavor (and every batch) to be tested. So, much easier (for them) to have someone else pay for it. And yet, so much less scientific to then claim "they know for sure now" what is in their eLiquid. I do not think the overwhelming majority knows (for sure) what is in their own tap water, and yet seemingly want higher standard, paid for by someone other than themselves, to be applied to eLiquid.

To what end?

The risk factor is front and center on this topic. The previous 2 points address it, and this next point I make, IMO, cuts to the chase for what is really at stake. If you went from smoking to vaping to mitigate risks, then I think that is respectful, but is also something that ought to remain personal, not broadcast as "what makes vaping better." Instead, we now live in a shared reality where vape enthusiasts are constantly touting the idea that vaping is (around) 98% safer than smoking. Never mind the fact that ANTZ could've been (I would say very likely) lying about data on smoking. People have own memories about how unhealthy smoking seemed, but again, never mind the fact that they were heavy/abusive smokers.

I'm struggling a bit to make this point concisely, but it contains these main sub-points:
- don't broadcast that vaping is safer than smoking
- do realize that some vapers see it as a recreational activity that has zero to do with smoking cessation
- do realize that there will always be a risk associated with vaping
- do realize that for ANTZ and most of general public, cold turkey will best match the idea of mitigating risks from smoking

If vaping today is 98% safer, and that figure is established, then let's be very conservative and say it is 75% at very least safer. That would mean that with diacetyl in vape stuff, it is safer than smoking. Are the people who are against diacetyl in their vapes looking for greater safety? Greater than 98%? Hoping to achieve 100% safety? To me, you've either already mitigated the risk, or the percentage of 'safer than cigarettes' is a lie that we tell ourselves, but also feel very comfortable broadcasting it, for reasons that don't make much sense to me.

Such a claim just begs a certain type of researcher (let's call them ANTZ-leaning) to prove that wrong. I observe they are so far failing, but also have not stopped trying. I don't believe they will ever stop trying for as long as vapers or industry is hanging their hat on the safer/safety peg.

Imagine if in actuality RJR today came out with a combustible smoke that was (actually) less dangerous than all other cigarettes to date. And they kept claiming how much safer it was. Think ANTZ wouldn't love to prove them wrong? Think general public would care a whole lot that now there is a safer cigarette on the market? Now, imagine if this new RJR product tasted better, puffed better, and was generally more liked by the consumers who chose it. Some of those who don't care, even a little bit, that it is safer. To them, that's just window dressing and/or icing on the cake. They enjoy the product for what it is when using it, not for what it is supposed to be in comparison to other products. Still think anyone in general public will think they are now engaged in a 'more healthy' activity?

I really do think the enjoyment factor of vaping goes down a notch (or ten) when it is constantly having to defend itself as "safer than smoking." Then that gets compounded by incessant desire to try and make it even more safe. If we start at point of 75% safer, why not be satisfied with that for industry standard? Why keep pushing the idea that it must be more safe than what it is right now (which is said to be 98% safer than smoking)?

Hopefully, in this wall of text, I've made my point. I would just add that if we are pushing for 'ultimate safety' in whatever way that is deemed practical, that we realize we might actually produce a product that would be safe enough for people under 18 to use and thus not have that added political trap on our docket. Otherwise, I'm still unclear as to what end this push for ultimate safety is all about? If you truly, 100% cared about safety, you'd truly 100% consider going cold turkey and/or broadcast that message with regards to "why vape at all?" You'd probably also show up as a little ANTZ-like if you were advocating for stop vaping ASAP. But as things stand now where safety is put on a pedestal and enjoyment factor is downplayed, it kinda sorta seems like ANTZ is having you view this product in the way they would like it to be viewed.

TL;DR
I think I may enjoy vaping diacetyl in my eLiquid that is deemed 98% safer than smoking. Why would you, anyone, seek to change that?