Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs

[Jman8]

Maybe it is exactly the fact that consumers are at the moment fighting this fight that will keep the government out in the long run?

Hey, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I am willing to sell to you. At a discount too!

I really cant help it if you keep seeing the government as solution for all problems we as people face.

And I really can't help if you keep framing "self regulation" as meaning that you need not change anything, but only the business is to change what they do.

 

[Racehorse]

i agree with what your saying. my point is the flavor
makers have already done the testing and know which
flavorings have or don't have these compounds.
they will gladly supply as per existing regulation the chemical
break down of each and every flavor. all that is required is for
the vendor to spend a couple of hours actually reading the
product sheets and label his products accordingly.
this can all be done under existing regulation.
every other product i can think of does this. legally a
disclaimer stating such and such may be harmful is all that's
necessary and prudent. it doesn't require an act of congress.
regards
mike

I agree with this.

I will replace the word "doesn't" with "shouldn't" .......as in it "shouldn't require an act of congress".

(Unfortunately, in cases of repeated fraud and such, there are some cases where it did. )

But my former questions still stand unanswered:

1) where is the list, a year later, of the eliquid vendors who have provided test results to show me as a consumer if the eliquid I'm buying is diacetyl free?
2) where is the list of the eqliquid vendors who have provided disclosure on what exact diketones are in their juice?

I'm going strictly by what Dr. F. suggested.....testing is the only way to truthfully answer to these questions.


Additionally Mike, what do you think a reasonable time period would be for the information above to be available to eliquid consumers (so that they can be responsible consumers)? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?

How many eliquid vendors are there in the US? I was looking for this, thinking that most any industry trade association would have a compilation of that stat....but unable to find one. I wanted to compute the % of eliquid makers who have tested versus those who haven't, at least, approximate that %.

 

[skoony]

I agree with this, which is why I've moved almost exclusively to DIY -- I can check those things about the flavors I use, but I have no guarantee that any ejuice vendors have checked them, know how to check them, or know what they mean if they do check them. By DIYing, I assume the responsibility for knowing what I'm vaping, since I can't count on ejuice vendors to know, or to be responsible enough to tell me what they discover.

This is exactly why I can no longer order shrimp at a restaurant, but I can eat them if I prepare them at home -- commercial shrimp that will be frozen raw are commonly color-preserved (so as not to turn brown) with some type of sulfite. Restaurants won't tell you if their food contains sulfites, and I suffered a major asthma attack once in a Red Lobster because of that. I can shop in a grocery for shrimp, and shrimp purchased that way require a notation of all ingredients present -- check the ingredients of a Lean Cuisine Shrimp Alfredo, you'll see the sulfites. If I buy pre-boiled frozen shrimp, I know they won't have sulfites, because shrimp already cooked don't need them, they stay white -- and they require very minimal heating in recipes, another plus.

It's those who refuse to take responsibility who are responsible for the plethora of regulations; they want Big Nanny to take care of them, so they don't have to bother. I'd love it if the FDA would outlaw sulfites entirely, as they serve no purpose other than color preservation for foods prone to browning, and there are other chemicals (sulfur dioxide, lemon juice, and, I *think*, fruit pectin) that would do the same job -- they just cost a *little* more. But I'm not going to ignore my own responsibility to only eat foods that won't harm me excessively -- ditto that for vaping, also because I have asthma. People with compromised lungs can't afford to wait for Big Nanny, because as nannyish as Big Nanny is, sometimes other concerns (money!) trump Big Nanny's ostensible responsibility.

Andria

I agree with this.

I will replace the word "doesn't" with "shouldn't" .......as in it "shouldn't require an act of congress".

(Unfortunately, in cases of repeated fraud and such, there are some cases where it did. )

But my former questions still stand unanswered:

1) where is the list, a year later, of the eliquid vendors who have provided test results to show me as a consumer if the eliquid I'm buying is diacetyl free?
2) where is the list of the eqliquid vendors who have provided disclosure on what exact diketones are in their juice?

I'm going strictly by what Dr. F. suggested.....testing is the only way to truthfully answer to these questions.


Additionally Mike, what do you think a reasonable time period would be for the information above to be available to eliquid consumers (so that they can be responsible consumers)? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?

How many eliquid vendors are there in the US? I was looking for this, thinking that most any industry trade association would have a compilation of that stat....but unable to find one. I wanted to compute the % of eliquid makers who have tested versus those who haven't, at least, approximate that %.

it is unnecessary as the manufacturers and wholesalers already have to abide
by FDA regulations as far as any documentation or testing that may be required.
a vendor would have to find an unregulated source to purchase non-compliant
source materials.t hat is already against existing law and i know of no occurrence
of this happening. due to the very nature of the ingredients reasonable substitutes
would cost more than then the materials cost anyway.
there not any vendors selling dangerous products that i know of. if one takes reasonable
care in adding the nicotine the worst that can happen is bad tasting juice.

regards
mike

 

[caramel]

But my former questions still stand unanswered:

1) where is the list, a year later, of the eliquid vendors who have provided test results to show me as a consumer if the eliquid I'm buying is diacetyl free?
2) where is the list of the eqliquid vendors who have provided disclosure on what exact diketones are in their juice?

Are you looking for something like this?

Electronic Cigarette Trade Association (ECTA) of Canada

 

[Kent C]

I wanted to like this post, but the part I bolded makes it too challenging.

My response to this quote isn't directed solely at Kent C, but is intended as discussion for this thread.

Cause this issue comes down to "preventing perceived harm." Yet, on the back end is "should be prosecuted to the fullest extent" if selling harmful products.

Appreciate that. I've made it clear elsewhere what I consider harm - direct harm - not indirect by forcing others to pay more insurance in some socialist scheme, or junk science harm - what you might define your 'perceived harm' or anything thing other than a direct violation of rights to the life, body, liberty or property of someone. So you might keep that in mind.

 

[Racehorse]

Are you looking for something like this?

Electronic Cigarette Trade Association (ECTA) of Canada

thanks caramel, very familiar with ECTA, I used to post about them last year.

They were doing some testing and I applaud them. That org however, is for canada.

Looking for a comprehensive list of (confirmed thru testing) diacetyl-free ejuice vendors in the USA.

I've seen a number of people asking for this.

There is one topic where there's a grand total of 5.......who actually can prove with test results, although some of those 5 are only on one or 2 juices.

People keep asking for a list (and I can't say I blame them, I mean we are being told by some of you to be responsible consumers but so far it's slow goin') but here's a start.......I guess this is, so far, the only confirmed 5 here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...53-diketones-free-vendors-3.html#post15217370

 

[ST Dog]

If you are arguing that it should be disclosed, then you are arguing it should be regulated. "Should be disclosed" is regulation. If okay with any vendor not disclosing, then not calling forth a regulation for all vendors.

Minor quibble.

"should" is not the language of a regulation. A regulation would be a "must" or "shall" statement.
Should is a suggestion, not a requirement. Must/shall is a requirement.

All vendors should disclose* but that is not enforceable language.



* I would like to see not just disclosure of the substance, but also the quantity so that a rational decision can be made as to how much to consume. There's a lot of variation in the amounts found, and that effects how much can safely be consumed.
Sort of like drinking wine v/s whiskey. One contains a lot more alcohol than the other. I can drink a bottle (750mL, 12-14%) of wine one evening w/o issue, but an equal volume of whiskey (the metric fifth-750mL, 40+%) would be problematic. That bottle of whiskey is more like 3-4 bottles of wine.

So, some liquids may be safe for a 2-3 mL a day, others only 2-3 mL a week. And the mixing among them matters.
So I need to know how much is in each mL to make a choice.
Others my choose to abstain completely, others may ignore it completely.

 

[ST Dog]

Obama:
"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

[As an aside, I find it a bit amusing that some Republicans simply don't like the phrasing of 'negative liberties' where they seem to think that the two words are incompatible (Rush L. doesn't like it). But it is one of the better explanations of how rights work. People are refrained from acting against individuals' rights, but there are not 'positive rights' where one is forced to supply someone with something. To do so, that sometimes, when there's a cost involved, violates the 'supplier's' rights of property. ]

I disagree while the assertion that he (you?) makes there. The constitution lays out what the federal government is allowed to do.
If it is not explicitly allowed, then it's disallowed.

The Bill of Rights was not supposed to be needed, and is not an all encompassing list of what the government cannot do.
It was just a clarification, make a few examples explicit. The 10th amendment even states that.

But we have 200 years of encroachment where the politicians and the judiciary have weaseled in all sorts of stuff by wordsmithing.

Twisting the interstate commerce clause to so cover purely intrastate, or even local use (see the case about a farmer fines for growing wheat for his own consumption fined under federal law because hes personal production affected interstate commerce since he wouldn't then be buying wheat. Wickard v. Filburn)

 

[Danie06]

Looking for a comprehensive list of (confirmed thru testing) diacetyl-free ejuice vendors in the USA.

I've seen a number of people asking for this.

There is one topic where there's a grand total of 5.......who actually can prove with test results, although some of those 5 are only on one or 2 juices.

People keep asking for a list (and I can't say I blame them, I mean we are being told by some of you to be responsible consumers but so far it's slow goin') but here's a start.......I guess this is, so far, the only confirmed 5 here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...53-diketones-free-vendors-3.html#post15217370

I've just seen this list being posted on the facebook site: Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl Free Juice Vendors:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/314...=group_r2j_approved#!/groups/314609708719483/

Click on the download link in the first post.

*Disclaimer: I havent had time to check it.

If you follow that facebook page: some vendors/ manufacturers post their testresults there.
If that means their liquids are 100% diacetyl/ diketones free, is another issue, but at least theyre working on it.

 

[ST Dog]

By the way, anybody seen all those photos of Fit Bit rash? I was looking at photos of people's wrists and it was ghastly. "Fitbit told the CPSC that there were 9,900 reports of “skin irritation” and 250 more of “blistering.” Those figures don’t quite add up with the company’s original statement that 1.7% of users reported a problem..."

Yet the government's response to such a situation is that the 98% unaffected won't be allowed to purchase the product.

Why should 98% be harmed by it not being available?

Granted, Fitbit could have handled it better, but the net result is that the device is gone form the market with no equivalent available.

 

[caramel]

I'm waiting for them to make (pea)nuts illegal - due to allergies.

That would be the foundation stone towards Soylent Green - the miraculous food that doesn't do any harm to anyone.

 

[Kent C]

I disagree while the assertion that he (you?) makes there. The constitution lays out what the federal government is allowed to do.
If it is not explicitly allowed, then it's disallowed.

The Bill of Rights was not supposed to be needed, and is not an all encompassing list of what the government cannot do.
It was just a clarification, make a few examples explicit. The 10th amendment even states that.

But we have 200 years of encroachment where the politicians and the judiciary have weaseled in all sorts of stuff by wordsmithing.

Twisting the interstate commerce clause to so cover purely intrastate, or even local use (see the case about a farmer fines for growing wheat for his own consumption fined under federal law because hes personal production affected interstate commerce since he wouldn't then be buying wheat. Wickard v. Filburn)

You're right in that the Constitution as a document lays out what the gov't can do, and only do. But, perhaps not the best wording, as a 'charter of negative liberties' points to the ideas upon which it is based - rights. And those rights are of the nature where others are 'restrained from action' (negative rights) against others - (except in self-defense, of course), and more to the point, where no rights demand action from others in order to uphold a right. IOW, one can't force another to educate them, provide them with food, housing, etc. - what could refer to, wrongly, (because no such 'rights' exists), as 'positive rights'. The concept of natural rights requires no action from others, other than to not interfere with another person's life (the basis of the idea of laisseze faire - let them do - leave them alone).

And you're right, the Bill of Rights was not supposed to be needed, especially in the eyes of James Madison, who basically wrote much of the Constitution, in that he believed delineating certain rights was the best way to only end up with those delineated and that the nature of gov't would tend to do away with all others not listed, hence, when he was convinced, mainly by Jefferson, that the Bill of Rights was necessary to pass the Constitution and to ensure certain factions that important rights would be upheld, he wrote the 9th and 10th amendments specifically for the reason you mention - that the 8 earlier amendments were not the only rights that were protected. I think a good case could be made that Madison was right in his original 'don't list any' view, but also that Jefferson (and others) was right in that there would have been no Constitution without them

Also, I think a very good case could be made that even listing particular rights hasn't protected them. Freedom of speech, press, religion - upon which NO law was to be passed, has taken hits by the PC crowd lately and the progressives much earlier. Not to mention the 2nd, 4th, 5th and a few others. So even the listing was not much protection after about 130 years.

And agree that Wickard v. Filmore is one of 'The Dirty Dozen' decisions that changed the face of the Constitution. See:Robert Levy and William Mellor's book by that name that listed the 12 worst Supreme Court decisions which tells much the story, in terms of bad court decisions, of how we got where we are today.

 

[Jman8]

thanks caramel, very familiar with ECTA, I used to post about them last year.

They were doing some testing and I applaud them. That org however, is for canada.

Looking for a comprehensive list of (confirmed thru testing) diacetyl-free ejuice vendors in the USA.

I've seen a number of people asking for this.

There is one topic where there's a grand total of 5.......who actually can prove with test results, although some of those 5 are only on one or 2 juices.

People keep asking for a list (and I can't say I blame them, I mean we are being told by some of you to be responsible consumers but so far it's slow goin') but here's a start.......I guess this is, so far, the only confirmed 5 here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...53-diketones-free-vendors-3.html#post15217370

I'm thinking Dr. F.'s research has a list of which vendors have products that are diketone free. Why not pressure him into revealing his information? Why does his reason for not sharing lab results apparently work for you, but a vendor is held to a standard that is seemingly nefarious for not being completely forthright?

And if these questions don't apply to you (that's great), but feel free to ask them on the other thread you linked. You can even quote my post. I would've, but didn't feel like taking the chorus there into territory of disagreement with basic purpose of that thread.

 

[Jman8]

Minor quibble.

"should" is not the language of a regulation. A regulation would be a "must" or "shall" statement.
Should is a suggestion, not a requirement. Must/shall is a requirement.

All vendors should disclose* but that is not enforceable language.

We disagree on this. If wanting to explore further in PM, I'm game. The quibble is minor, but I stand by the idea that "should" equals "desire for regulation." That desire can change simply by changing the word (i.e. to could instead).

* I would like to see not just disclosure of the substance, but also the quantity so that a rational decision can be made as to how much to consume. There's a lot of variation in the amounts found, and that effects how much can safely be consumed.
Sort of like drinking wine v/s whiskey. One contains a lot more alcohol than the other. I can drink a bottle (750mL, 12-14%) of wine one evening w/o issue, but an equal volume of whiskey (the metric fifth-750mL, 40+%) would be problematic. That bottle of whiskey is more like 3-4 bottles of wine.

So, some liquids may be safe for a 2-3 mL a day, others only 2-3 mL a week. And the mixing among them matters.
So I need to know how much is in each mL to make a choice.
Others my choose to abstain completely, others may ignore it completely.

If you need to know, I would suggest you do your own testing. If not willing to do this, please explain why.

With alcohol, the main ingredient that people seek is presented with percentages. With eLiquid (containing nicotine), this is also currently being done, in its own way that is well established in the industry. I'm sure alcoholic drinks have chemicals, other than alcohol, that carry with them a degree of risk. Do you think alcohol makers ought to be presenting percentages of all chemical components in their products? Or just the ones that some (rather vocal) groups wish for the companies to display?

Now, I'm wondering if people who mix their own alcohol drinks are setting up the industry for even more regulation. Who knows what the long term studies are from mixing latest energy drink with any alcoholic beverage? What compounds are being introduced into the system that weren't present in other drinks before that? Do we even have long term studies, that analyze all chemical components, of say "rum and coke?"

Also, just want to note that what you are asking for, the FDA can provide. I'm not sure who else can provide it for all vendors in the industry and will have unlimited resources to deliver to the consumer on a long term basis. Would take a requirement placed on all vendors to pay for this. And if the payment annually is say $250,000 and some vendors go out of business due to this, oh well.

 

[Jman8]

I've just seen this list being posted on the facebook site: Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl Free Juice Vendors:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/314...=group_r2j_approved#!/groups/314609708719483/

See, it's only a $150 per sample for testing. Any individual can afford that. And if somehow that's not true, then group fund and pay for it.

I'm just saying, that is a viable option going forward for any individual who says they are concerned. To say it is only the responsibility of the vendor seems like a cop out.

Either way, you won't know for sure unless you do your own testing. But best wishes! I hope you get what it is you say you desire from the process.

 

[Danie06]

* I would like to see not just disclosure of the substance, but also the quantity so that a rational decision can be made as to how much to consume. There's a lot of variation in the amounts found, and that effects how much can safely be consumed.
Sort of like drinking wine v/s whiskey. One contains a lot more alcohol than the other. I can drink a bottle (750mL, 12-14%) of wine one evening w/o issue, but an equal volume of whiskey (the metric fifth-750mL, 40+%) would be problematic. That bottle of whiskey is more like 3-4 bottles of wine.

So, some liquids may be safe for a 2-3 mL a day, others only 2-3 mL a week. And the mixing among them matters.
So I need to know how much is in each mL to make a choice.
Others my choose to abstain completely, others may ignore it completely.

You are correct that such info is needed. The tests I have seen so far from a nr of vendors/ manufacturers do indeed disclose that info.
Vaping no diacetyl (and other diketones) at all, isn’t realistic maybe, that’s why Dr Farsalinos created a safety limit specifically for vaping.
The existing safety limit was aimed at factory workers working with flavours and created by the NIOSH.
Its actually led to a debate between Farsalinos and the NIOSH about this safety limit.
The safety limit Dr. Farsalinos created for vaping is “65micrograms/day for diacetyl and 137micrograms/day for acetyl propionyl”.
There was a very interesting discussion between Fasalinos and Russ on VP live about this and how much diacetyl you could safely vape etc, but atm I cant find the link.

If you read the study he and others did, a lot of liquids did contain trace amounts of diacetyl but far below that safety limit. In that light the amount of diacetyl and other diketones is indeed something vendors/ manufacturers need to test for.
That way you can make an informed decision, which liquids are below and which are above that safety limit.
The positive thing is that in every test Ive seen so far such numbers are given.

But if I may add, it also could effect your own behaviour. If you look at liquids, the less flavour, the better seems a logical/ realistic idea.
So its far better to have lets say 4 or 5% flavours than lets say 15%.
And if you're really absolutely hooked on that one custard/ bakery liquid, you could always decide to not vape it all day.

 

[AndriaD]

You are correct that such info is needed. The tests I have seen so far from a nr of vendors/ manufacturers do indeed disclose that info.
Vaping no diacetyl (and other diketones) at all, isn’t realistic maybe, that’s why Dr Farsalinos created a safety limit specifically for vaping.
The existing safety limit was aimed at factory workers working with flavours and created by the NIOSH.
Its actually led to a debate between Farsalinos and the NIOSH about this safety limit.
The safety limit Dr. Farsalinos created for vaping is “65micrograms/day for diacetyl and 137micrograms/day for acetyl propionyl”.
There was a very interesting discussion between Fasalinos and Russ on VP live about this and how much diacetyl you could safely vape etc, but atm I cant find the link.

If you read the study he and others did, a lot of liquids did contain trace amounts of diacetyl but far below that safety limit. In that light the amount of diacetyl and other diketones is indeed something vendors/ manufacturers need to test for.
That way you can make an informed decision, which liquids are below and which are above that safety limit.
The positive thing is that in every test Ive seen so far such numbers are given.

But if I may add, it also could effect your own behaviour. If you look at liquids, the less flavour, the better seems a logical/ realistic idea.
So its far better to have lets say 4 or 5% flavours than lets say 15%.
And if you're really absolutely hooked on that one custard/ bakery liquid, you could always decide to not vape it all day.

I tend to agree that knowing percentages would be useful info, but I'm just that sort of detail-oriented person; since I am generally against any further regulation than that already in place to protect consumers, I recognize that it is very unlikely to ever see that sort of detail on ejuice, unless some vendor comes along who bases his entire schtick on that kind of thing. Could happen, and I'd at least try the juice, if it was at all within my own realm of affordability.

As for the less flavors... hmm. I have many opinions on that, some of them contradictory. I have vaped both lightly-flavored and very heavily flavored ejuice (my own DIY is very much the latter). The lightly flavored juices were far kinder to the hardware -- since I was using a Kanger T3S at the time, it had to be that kind of juice, and high PG; my very first coil/wick in one of those, before I realized that they needed regular cleaning/replacing, lasted for 3 weeks -- the DIY I vape now wouldn't have lasted 3 DAYS in those tanks, heck they gunk up a kayfun something fierce after 12 hrs!

However, it must be observed that I have enjoyed the sweet, densely-flavored juices far more than I did the Virginia I vaped at first, to replace my Slims. I started trying out the sweet flavors when I was in the process of my 2nd quit, trying as hard as I could to get back to smoke-free, and Icey Pineapple and Blueberry Muffin helped me achieve it, and once I got used to vaping those sweet, rich flavors, I no longer liked the Virginia at all. I put some of the Virginia in a carto this week, when I wanted something *not sweet*... and the best thing that can be said for it is that it sure makes me appreciate my Blueberry Muffin, Strawberries and Cream, and Smoky Cappucino! So, in short, I think that *trying* for lower flavoring is probably a worthy goal, but it can reach a point of diminishing returns -- if you take the flavoring so low that you enjoy it less, it might put one (one like me!) at some risk for smoking relapse. I really don't want to go there again, it ...... me off and disappointed me and worried me that I wouldn't be able to lay the dang coffin nails down again. For me, as determined as I am to never smoke again, I need to enjoy the hell out of my vape -- and I do, nevermind all the re-wicking and dry-burning I have to do; the heavy flavoring also means my DIY is better than anything I can buy, which keeps me from wasting money on ejuice.

Andria

 

[ST Dog]

Popcorn lung doesnt develop or show symptoms overnight or over a few years...

Have to look back when I get to my computer, but I thought the article that started this thread claimed symptoms in a short time.

 

[Kent C]

Have to look back when I get to my computer, but I thought the article that started this thread claimed symptoms in a short time.

From the article:

"Inhaling the chemical can quickly destroy the lungs...."

 

[stevegmu]

Have to look back when I get to my computer, but I thought the article that started this thread claimed symptoms in a short time.

As mentioned previously, the symptoms of "popcorn lung" are primarily cough and shortness of breath. These symptoms can develop slowly and subtly, gradually progressing to more disabling symptoms over time. Some patients may complain of fevers, night sweats, and weight loss. Severe exposure as seen in microwave popcorn plant workers may include inflammation of the skin and mucosal surfaces (eyes, nose, and/or throat). In general, however, because the symptoms are so similar to tobacco-related COPD as well as asthma, the diagnosis may be difficult to make without a high level of suspicion.

http://www.medicinenet.com/popcorn_lung_symptoms_and_causes/views.htm


Who really knows? I have a feeling we will find out sooner or later. Custards are pretty popular vapes...