Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs

[Danie06]

He didn't. Just that if it concerns you, then you should handle it yourself.

I know, and luckily its not up to him to decide that.
Its really very simple a question of economics. As it seems a lot of vapers are concerend about diacetyl, they contact their liquid makers and liquidmakers react to that.
Those of us that are concerned will buy our liquids at those suppliers that take this problem serious and supply the testing results etc.
Those that dont care wont.
Thats already how it is and more and more liquid makers already provide you with the exact testresults.

But I really think its ridiculous to tell consumers: if youre worried about your health and if its a concern shared by health professionals, you should pay for the testing yourself...lol

And truth be told; I dont know anyone who has done as much research about the healtheffects of vaping as Dr. Farsalinos, and who works as hard for vaping as he does. Its hardly possible to see a negative research publication or misquoted research without him immediately providing a response to it etc.
If someone like that, a doctor on top of it, issues such a serious warning about diacetyl as he did in his article, I take that over the opinion of someone on a mb any time, any day.

Bottom line is: I seriously dont like the way in which some people seem to forget we're vaping activists, sure, but also consumers with certain rights.
Let alone that we somehow start to tell each other who is and who isnt a 'good' vaper.

 

[AndriaD]

I don’t tell you what to vape, and I’d appreciate it you don’t tell me what to vape.

I’d appreciate it if you don’t tell me what I should vape or what is or what isn’t becoming of a vaping enthusiast.

BINGO!!! Right on the money!!!



Andria

 

[skoony]

The weird thing is: I havent seen anyone in this thread say anything along the line: the industry needs to clean up its act and test their liquids properly etc. Or: it shouldn’t be in any liquids.
Ive only seen people say: I don’t want to vape it, period.
Yet even that apparently seems to irritate you or you even criticise those people.
To me that’s the whole world upside down.
I don’t tell you what to vape, and I’d appreciate it you don’t tell me what to vape.

I refuse to become deaf, dumb and blind concerning vaping, just because of antz hysteria.
Vaping is a great thing, it is a lot safer than smoking, but it can still be made safer.
I bought my first e-cigarette 7 years ago and if I compare that piece of crap with what I use now, there’s been a tremendous improvement already. I’m sure that development will continue.

Now about my personal dislike for diacetyl and other diketones:
I used to vape custards all day long and I somehow didn’t feel very well. Here I was defending vaping as much as I could and yet I had a lot of health issues. I had problems breathing deep, got out of breath quickly while walking etc.
Just by accident I heard about diacetyl and I decided to start reading up on diacetyl and then I switched to a liquid with a very low amount of flavor and with enough testing done to it (in the right lab etc) to assure me it had no diacetyl (and the substances related to it) in it.
Within two weeks all my health issues disappeared.
Does that prove anything? Nope, it might have been purely coincidence. But to me it has only confirmed what I already read and heard about diacetyl.
And again: this is my safety, my health, my body.
This is all purely personal, how you wish to vape and what you wish to vape.
I’ve been a very heavy smoker for 35 years and I am very aware my lungs are probably a horrible mess because of it. Because of that I don’t want to take any avoidable risk with vaping.
I don’t see that as fear mongering, I see that as using my brains. And I’ll keep using my brains when vaping, no matter how people are now using Antz hysteria as an argument to vapers to become deaf, dumb and blind. If Antz are picking up on this diacetyl story its because the liquid industry has refused to clean up its act in the past few years. And yes they were warned for this.

And btw: yes it needs to be presented with very stark terms or I won’t buy the liquid. The industry sells something; they should test it and display the test results for all to see. We’d ask that from any industry, then why not ask the same basic info from the liquid industry.
Those of us that are concerned about diacetyl can simply buy their liquids from those liquid makers we trust and who already display those test results.
As long as I can see the results, I can make my own decision which liquid I’ll buy and which I won’t buy. Enough liquid makers already do this, so I don’t see why that would bother you.

And you dont have to agree with a single word I just posted. Maybe you’ll think I’m a nutcase (might be true but that’s another story.). You can vape diacetyl as much as you like, but I’d appreciate it if you don’t tell me what I should vape or what is or what isn’t becoming of a vaping enthusiast.

i a glad you worked that out. it could have been the custard mix
was a little to thick for your system or the diacetyl.
the beauty of it is you worked it out yourself with out any
imperial entanglements.
i think diacetyl free or contains diacetyl would be all the warning
needed on a label. all the ingredients used in juice come with product
data sheets breaking down whats actually in them or the information
is easily available from the manufacturers. FDA approved products already
require this. if a producer says there is no diacetyl in this particular
flavoring,it better not have any.
simply reading the product data sheets would eliminate the expense
of further laboratory testing at the vendor level.

regards
mike

 

[Kent C]

Danie06:I know, and luckily its not up to him to decide that.

Since he has said he didn't care what others vape, we'd be lucky if he was the one to decide. Others, not so much.

The 'who should be responsible' thing has been dragged out here already, many times. But telling a vendor what to sell, is the same as telling a vaper what to vape, so I'm against that. The vendor will continue in business or not by how consumers judge their products. I'd urge them to consider these things but not force them too. Ultimately the person themselves is responsible for what they take into their body and if they have those concerns, then that is their problem, nobody else.


Let alone that we somehow start to tell each other who is and who isnt a 'good' vaper.

I'm with you on that. My only point was to point out, he didn't tell you what to vape, when you implied he did.

 

[Jman8]

The weird thing is: I havent seen anyone in this thread say anything along the line: the industry needs to clean up its act and test their liquids properly etc. Or: it shouldn’t be in any liquids.
Ive only seen people say: I don’t want to vape it, period.

Then, you haven't been reading this thread carefully.

As a community, we should not downplay the presence of diacetyl in our eliquids.

This comes from post #4 of this thread, using the pronoun "we" and "our" which lead to my response in post #5.

Others have said, as you have said (in this quote above) that the industry needs to clean up its act. Saying this at a time when FDA is proposing very expensive regulations designed to force such a clean up and if it happens to bankrupt a few (hundred) companies in the process, so be it. I routinely observe the anti-diacetyl crowd to frame this issue as industry is not doing enough and industry needs to cater to the anti-diacetyl crowd by a) at very least noting clearly and precisely the content of diacetyl in their liquids and b) ideally doing testing to verify that information, so the consumer knows precisely as well.

I see this as a trap, of sorts. This isn't first time industry has been confronted with the issue. Industry thought it tackled this issue sufficiently only to be accused by some consumers that it was lying to us. That's the trap, at the superficial level. That's what many believe BT did (I would argue otherwise). The other part of the trap is getting vapers to agree that expensive regulations are needed to maintain safety of liquids. $200 per liquid, per batch doesn't seem too expensive to average consumer when industry is bringing in billions of dollars. But, I observe it to be expensive and don't have much problem making that point clear when I suggest any consumer do this. Then suddenly it becomes a ridiculous proposition, when in reality, you as consumer will never know for sure if it is in there or not, unless you do your own testing. To rely on third person testing is a matter of faith/trust, not hard science. If third party testing turns out to be false, the accusations of "you lied to us" fly freely.

I refuse to become deaf, dumb and blind concerning vaping, just because of antz hysteria.
Vaping is a great thing, it is a lot safer than smoking, but it can still be made safer.
I bought my first e-cigarette 7 years ago and if I compare that piece of crap with what I use now, there’s been a tremendous improvement already. I’m sure that development will continue.

Now about my personal dislike for diacetyl and other diketones:
I used to vape custards all day long and I somehow didn’t feel very well. Here I was defending vaping as much as I could and yet I had a lot of health issues. I had problems breathing deep, got out of breath quickly while walking etc.
Just by accident I heard about diacetyl and I decided to start reading up on diacetyl and then I switched to a liquid with a very low amount of flavor and with enough testing done to it (in the right lab etc) to assure me it had no diacetyl (and the substances related to it) in it.
Within two weeks all my health issues disappeared.
Does that prove anything? Nope, it might have been purely coincidence. But to me it has only confirmed what I already read and heard about diacetyl.
And again: this is my safety, my health, my body.
This is all purely personal, how you wish to vape and what you wish to vape.
I’ve been a very heavy smoker for 35 years and I am very aware my lungs are probably a horrible mess because of it. Because of that I don’t want to take any avoidable risk with vaping.
I don’t see that as fear mongering, I see that as using my brains. And I’ll keep using my brains when vaping, no matter how people are now using Antz hysteria as an argument to vapers to become deaf, dumb and blind. If Antz are picking up on this diacetyl story its because the liquid industry has refused to clean up its act in the past few years. And yes they were warned for this.

And here is justification for the trap based on a lie. ANTZ isn't picking up on diacetyl story because industry has refused to clean up its act. Again, industry already addressed this issue, so this refusal you cite is a lie. I also would have trouble believing with 100% certainty that what you switched to had no diacetyl in it. And would claim, you do not know for sure. That you perhaps didn't clean up your act, even while you believe you did. This is what industry went through, but then was accused of lying when trace amounts of this natural byproduct were found. Farsalino didn't accuse any vendor of lying, and made it a point to say that more advanced means of testing are needed to establish accurate readings. Hence, the added expense.

ANTZ picked up this story because it's consistent MO is to engage in fear mongering with regards to every chemical component found in most eLiquids.

And btw: yes it needs to be presented with very stark terms or I won’t buy the liquid. The industry sells something; they should test it and display the test results for all to see. We’d ask that from any industry, then why not ask the same basic info from the liquid industry.

Because we don't ask for this level of scrutiny from any other industry, nor do we expect it. I've seen labels on many popular products that say "this product may contain thus and so" to handle the defense from what some consumers do not want in that product.

When this diacetyl issue is scrutinized for all its worth (via fear mongering), I like to return that by asking for the 10+ years of research for inhaling its replacement in eLiquids. Where can I find that information? Where is it presented starkly? If it is not, then why must diacetyl be for all consumers? What if I understand the risk and then insist on buying diacetyl laced flavors? Who speaks for that consumer?

Those of us that are concerned about diacetyl can simply buy their liquids from those liquid makers we trust and who already display those test results.
As long as I can see the results, I can make my own decision which liquid I’ll buy and which I won’t buy. Enough liquid makers already do this, so I don’t see why that would bother you.

Because I see it as a trapping. The pseudo trapping (with real world business repercussions), I've spoken to. The actual trapping is you as a consumer in the current market do not know, with 100% certainty, if what you are vaping is diacetyl free unless you do your own testing. Short of that, is faith/trust. Then when that feels betrayed, you (general you) want to lash out for being lied to, when in reality, it is you who were being irresponsible by placing trust in a company and establishing it on basis of "now I know for sure." You don't. My contention is you won't know for sure. I dislike that some vapers require industry to do the work for them so they may claim they know. I'm calling that out for what it is. Lack of responsibility by the consumer. Stop lying that you know what's in your vape stuff based on third party reports.

And you dont have to agree with a single word I just posted. Maybe you’ll think I’m a nutcase (might be true but that’s another story.). You can vape diacetyl as much as you like, but I’d appreciate it if you don’t tell me what I should vape or what is or what isn’t becoming of a vaping enthusiast.

Haven't said what you should vape.

Have said you (you being type of vaper that thinks industry needs to clean up its act), are the one that needs to first clean up own act or be a little better prepared to engage in this sort of debate on level that is both honest and truly matters. The lack of knowledge and deception charges cut two ways. Those who seek to blame industry for their own shortcomings are those I feel are not becoming of vaping enthusiasts.

 

[Jman8]

But I really think its ridiculous to tell consumers: if youre worried about your health and if its a concern shared by health professionals, you should pay for the testing yourself...lol

And truth be told; I dont know anyone who has done as much research about the healtheffects of vaping as Dr. Farsalinos, and who works as hard for vaping as he does. Its hardly possible to see a negative research publication or misquoted research without him immediately providing a response to it etc.
If someone like that, a doctor on top of it, issues such a serious warning about diacetyl as he did in his article, I take that over the opinion of someone on a mb any time, any day.

Bottom line is: I seriously dont like the way in which some people seem to forget we're vaping activists, sure, but also consumers with certain rights.
Let alone that we somehow start to tell each other who is and who isnt a 'good' vaper.

I would very much like you, or anyone, to explain why it is ridiculous or not desirable for consumers to pay for their own testing on matter that concerns them. This, to me, is where the real dismissiveness is coming in. IMO, your concern can't be too great if you aren't willing to do it yourself.

The ironic thing is Dr. F's research was funded by a group of vapers who were that concerned. So, if it is too expensive for you, then form a group of "concerned vapers" who get together to fund researchers for the tests you (collectively) deem necessary. That makes more sense, even while then, I would still contend that you won't know with same degree of certainty as you would if you did your own research.

Instead, it seems like average vaping consumer, caught up in anti-diacetyl craze, thinks entire industry (all vendors) must pay for testing and must print that information so consumer has better information than they do now. That doesn't strike me as far-fetched, but does strike me as cop out, for reality will show you do not know with 100% certainty if we, collectively, travel that path. The fact that we've already traveled this path and been proven 'wrong' helps establish this case. And what does hurt this cause, but not sure how many are tuned into this, is that it could bankrupt some vendors. I think some in anti-diacetyl crowd are okay with that, seeing it as trimming the industry of unwanted vendors. But that won't be made clear on who exited and why. If anything, a well known vendor will likely say "regulations got too harsh for their bottom line, and now we must exit." So, average vaper will think FDA or some other entity did that to the business, without realizing, perhaps, that it was those who kept clamoring for industry to clean up its act.

This is part of political discussion where it gets challenging to see FDA / ANTZ as solely responsible for bringing about de facto ban on the industry. I have no issues with scapegoating those 2 entities with such a task, but also feel, if we are being honest with ourselves (as vapers), that we are playing our part in that process. That we want what FDA says it wants, even while FDA is likely playing the game at another level (of backroom dealings). FDA proposed regulations say that FDA wants to assure consumers that the industry is producing tested / relatively safe products. How can you not be on board with this and support FDA regulations?

Well, the answer to that question, from politically aware vaper's perspective comes with realization that FDA is saying that on front end, but arranging things on back end to put onus entirely on vendor with intent to cut off supply. And when anyone in anti-diacetyl even hints at message of "good riddance" for industry member that refused to engage in the anti-diacetyl protocol (test your liquids, post results, inform me as a consumer), then I feel it needs to be seen as not just FDA is doing this thing of cutting off supply. Some vapers, who I question their integrity as vaping enthusiasts, are ones that I feel are playing the ANTZ game or playing right into it. And doing so by being dismissive of their own responsibility in the actual correction to the actual concern that they say they have.

 

[Danie06]

Then, you haven't been reading this thread carefully.



This comes from post #4 of this thread, using the pronoun "we" and "our" which lead to my response in post #5.

Others have said, as you have said (in this quote above) that the industry needs to clean up its act. Saying this at a time when FDA is proposing very expensive regulations designed to force such a clean up and if it happens to bankrupt a few (hundred) companies in the process, so be it. I routinely observe the anti-diacetyl crowd to frame this issue as industry is not doing enough and industry needs to cater to the anti-diacetyl crowd by a) at very least noting clearly and precisely the content of diacetyl in their liquids and b) ideally doing testing to verify that information, so the consumer knows precisely as well.

I see this as a trap, of sorts. This isn't first time industry has been confronted with the issue. Industry thought it tackled this issue sufficiently only to be accused by some consumers that it was lying to us. That's the trap, at the superficial level. That's what many believe BT did (I would argue otherwise). The other part of the trap is getting vapers to agree that expensive regulations are needed to maintain safety of liquids. $200 per liquid, per batch doesn't seem too expensive to average consumer when industry is bringing in billions of dollars. But, I observe it to be expensive and don't have much problem making that point clear when I suggest any consumer do this. Then suddenly it becomes a ridiculous proposition, when in reality, you as consumer will never know for sure if it is in there or not, unless you do your own testing. To rely on third person testing is a matter of faith/trust, not hard science. If third party testing turns out to be false, the accusations of "you lied to us" fly freely.

I think these discussions are kinda useless tbh, because it will soon turn into a yes/ no, yes/ no debate. In my opinion part of the industry has lied to us. There was uproar about diacetyl and it has concerned vapers for years, so what they did was advertise on their sites that their liquid was diacetyl free. Period.
What they didn’t tell us was that the substances they used to replace diacetyl were just as suspect as diacetyl and that this had been known for years.
I call that misleading your consumers.
Then there are those that posted on their websites their liquids were diacetyl free when they really had no idea to begin with and just lied, period.

However, unlike you I believe the current state of the liquid market has actually changed a lot for the better the last half year.
At the moment a consumer can make an informed choice what to vape and whether or not he/ she wants his / her liquid to be diacetyl free.
Some vendors clearly state: this liquid has diacetyl/ diketones in it or has trace amounts of diacetyl in it. I actually applaud that, because at least they’re being honest.
The consumer can then chose whether or not to vape that liquid. The consumer has a right to know what is in their liquids and should be able to make an informed choice.

Other vendors test their liquids for diacetyl only, which isn’t very helpful imo.
Then there are other vendors that test for diacetyl, and other diketones and provide you with the test result.
If you inform yourself and read up a lot about the subject it is possible atm to vape diacetyl free liquids (and not just diacetyl free but also free of acetyl propionyl and acetoin etc).
That’s another point where you and I disagree, because the info is out there.

For the rest of your opinion about who needs to pay for tests: vendors are already testing, as they should.
It is never the responsibility of consumers to know and test what is in liquids, but of the people selling the liquids and earning money of them. They should at least know what they’re selling.
But since an impressive part of the industry has accepted this and is testing and providing the test results atm, I don’t see much use for this debate.
As I said: it’s about economics. I buy only at those vendors that provide the correct test results, done in the correct labs while using the correct testing methods. I’m pretty sure a lot of others are doing that too, making it profitable for those vendors to do these tests.

Btw: I will never ever suggest that because you have a different opinion than me on this subject you’re not worthy of the vaping community or something, so maybe you can restrain yourself from such comments too.

 

[stevegmu]

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

It is allowed because e-liquid isn't regulated, it tastes good and some people don't care about their health, extremists don't think it is dangerous...

 

[Danie06]

The 'who should be responsible' thing has been dragged out here already, many times. But telling a vendor what to sell, is the same as telling a vaper what to vape, so I'm against that. The vendor will continue in business or not by how consumers judge their products.

I agree with you 100% here.
I dont want to tell vendors they cant sell liquids with diacetyl in it. Some vendors are very open and put the exact info on their websites, including: this liquid contains traceamount of diacetyl.
Thats perfectly fine with me, because then people can make their own choice.

I find this whole thread rather surreal tbh. I have only posted: I dont want to vape liquids with diacetyl etc in it, period.
I dont really care what others want or not, and I most certainly don't want to tell vendors they cant sell liquids with diacetyl in it.
I rather talk with my wallet, meaning; i buy my liquids from vendors that deal with this issue in a very active/ responsible way. If its just me that feels like this, they'll probably go bankrupt pretty soon.
But I dont think its just me.

 

[Kent C]

I agree with you 100% here.
I dont want to tell vendors they cant sell liquids with diacetyl in it. Some vendors are very open and put the exact info on their websites, including: this liquid contains traceamount of diacetyl.
Thats perfectly fine with me, because then people can make their own choice.

I find this whole thread rather surreal tbh. I have only posted: I dont want to vape liquids with diacetyl etc in it, period.
I dont really care what others want or not, and I most certainly don't want to tell vendors they cant sell liquids with diacetyl in it.
I rather talk with my wallet, meaning; i buy my liquids from vendors that deal with this issue in a very active/ responsible way. If its just me that feels like this, they'll probably go bankrupt pretty soon.
But I dont think its just me.

It's not just you. And the more people that make known their preferences to vendors, the more vendors will accommodate. Some won't care, but some will and some do already.

 

[Kent C]

It is allowed because e-liquid isn't regulated, it tastes good and some people don't care about their health, extremists don't think it is dangerous...

Some didn't think eggs were 'dangerous' or butter or fats - they were right. Who are the extremists? Those who promote danger when there is none? Or those who think the danger is overstated?

Those are 'rhetorical' questions for you and others as I don't intend to engage in any 'discussion' with you on it.

 

[stevegmu]

I agree with you 100% here.
I dont want to tell vendors they cant sell liquids with diacetyl in it. Some vendors are very open and put the exact info on their websites, including: this liquid contains traceamount of diacetyl.
Thats perfectly fine with me, because then people can make their own choice.

I find this whole thread rather surreal tbh. I have only posted: I dont want to vape liquids with diacetyl etc in it, period.
I dont really care what others want or not, and I most certainly don't want to tell vendors they cant sell liquids with diacetyl in it.
I rather talk with my wallet, meaning; i buy my liquids from vendors that deal with this issue in a very active/ responsible way. If its just me that feels like this, they'll probably go bankrupt pretty soon.
But I dont think its just me.

The problem is most vapers have no idea some vendors are using potentially dangerous ingredients. They knowingly use them or don't want to spend the money to test. Without mandated warning labels it isn't up to the consumer who doesn't know any better. I'm all for the don't care crowd being lab rats; not so much those who simply don't know and weren't warned said ingredients are being used...

 

[stevegmu]

Some didn't think eggs were 'dangerous' or butter or fats - they were right. Who are the extremists? Those who promote danger when there is none? Or those who think the danger is overstated?

Those are 'rhetorical' questions for you and others as I don't intend to engage in any 'discussion' with you on it.

Perhaps you should put me on the ignore list if you are not capable of rational discussion...

 

[Kent C]

If you don't know and don't do anything to find out, you don't care.

 

[Kent C]

Perhaps you should put me on the ignore list if you are not capable of rational discussion...

If I thought you could rationally discuss something, I might engage. But you've prove you can't with almost every post.

 

[stevegmu]

If I thought you could rationally discuss something, I might engage. But you've prove you can't with almost every post.

Odd, you keep following me around and replying to my posts...

 

[Kent C]

Odd, you keep following me around and replying to my posts...

Other than just now, I can't remember the last time I replied to you - maybe in December? You must be thinking of someone else.

 

[Jman8]

There was uproar about diacetyl and it has concerned vapers for years, so what they did was advertise on their sites that their liquid was diacetyl free. Period.
What they didn’t tell us was that the substances they used to replace diacetyl were just as suspect as diacetyl and that this had been known for years.
I call that misleading your consumers.
Then there are those that posted on their websites their liquids were diacetyl free when they really had no idea to begin with and just lied, period.

I disagree that it is them who are misleading. That to me is where this debate still resides. Dr. F. has an (informed) opinion on the avoidable risk, but doesn't have informed research about vapers vaping diacetyl free liquids for 10+ years. That will come in time. But as other posts on this thread have (rightfully) noted, science isn't especially consistent with what it deems healthy / unhealthy for consumption. Then add in the FACT, that there are ANTZ-leaning scientists doing research to reach conclusions that seem a whole lot like they were pre-determined before the hypothesis stage. This translates to concern for bad stuff in vaping products, according to the average person. This is the perspective I see you (and several others) representing.

However, unlike you I believe the current state of the liquid market has actually changed a lot for the better the last half year.

This is reason why it becomes challenging to have respectful debate. You are setting me up to defend this position and wording it in a way that is unfounded. Perhaps you can quote where I've said something that leads to this assessment. As I see this assessment whereby you acknowledge that vendors are cleaning up their act in way that ought to appease reasonably concerned diacetyl-free vapers, then I think it helps my points, and is false to say I am one who dislikes or disbelieves in such a change. I'm very happy there are diacetyl-free vendors on the free/under regulated market. Just as I'm very okay with vendors who may have diacetyl laced eLiquids for sale on the free market.

At the moment a consumer can make an informed choice what to vape and whether or not he/ she wants his / her liquid to be diacetyl free.
Some vendors clearly state: this liquid has diacetyl/ diketones in it or has trace amounts of diacetyl in it. I actually applaud that, because at least they’re being honest.
The consumer can then chose whether or not to vape that liquid. The consumer has a right to know what is in their liquids and should be able to make an informed choice.

So, if all this is true, I don't see what the issue would be from the diacetyl-free crowd. The choice to purchase items that avoid the risk already exists. What more could this crowd want that is within reason?

Other vendors test their liquids for diacetyl only, which isn’t very helpful imo.
Then there are other vendors that test for diacetyl, and other diketones and provide you with the test result.
If you inform yourself and read up a lot about the subject it is possible atm to vape diacetyl free liquids (and not just diacetyl free but also free of acetyl propionyl and acetoin etc).
That’s another point where you and I disagree, because the info is out there.

The info may be out there, but from what you were saying in opening paragraph could also be misleading. How would you know? Vendor tells you they have lab reports to back up their claim that their eLiquids are diacetyl/diketone/acetyl propionyl/acetoin free. All music to your ears. All what you want to hear. But how do you know for sure that you aren't being mislead again?

That is where I see our disagreement. I realize you and others like you will buy from those that claim what it is you say you want, but then if they turn out to be false reports, I think you'll say they mislead you, when reality will always show that if you were truly concerned, you could've done own testing to be 100% sure, but chose to not do that and to trust vendors / industry that had already shown up to you, according to you, as misleading its consumer base. How is that not a little bit on you then going forward? IMO, it is mostly to entirely on you, but it seems like this point I keep raising keeps getting swept under the rug because people don't want to do the work themselves and do feel it righteous to trust vendors. Yet, it seems hard to reconcile that when same crowd also admits industry lied to them (as a whole).

For the rest of your opinion about who needs to pay for tests: vendors are already testing, as they should.
It is never the responsibility of consumers to know and test what is in liquids, but of the people selling the liquids and earning money of them. They should at least know what they’re selling.

It becomes the responsibility of the consumer when they claim they have a concern that may not be concern for others in the market. That is where we disagree. I understand the risk with diacetyl and do not share the same concern you have, so I think industry is being very good, if not great, with degree of information it shares with its consumer base. I would change nothing and by that mean that I think it will improve quality all on its own. I believe clamoring for industry to clean up its act, claiming that we've been lied to, and similar rhetoric while ANTZ are observing this budding industry and while FDA proposed regulations are on the table is very irresponsible and ought to be met with a debate such as this one.

I continue to wonder if the diacetyl-free crowd in their many expressions does realize that it is feeding ANTZ rhetoric. As in doing ANTZ work for them. This strikes me as irresponsible. Or as I put it before, not becoming of a vaping enthusiast.

As I said: it’s about economics. I buy only at those vendors that provide the correct test results, done in the correct labs while using the correct testing methods. I’m pretty sure a lot of others are doing that too, making it profitable for those vendors to do these tests.

Then the industry doesn't have a problem from what you are expressing here.

Btw: I will never ever suggest that because you have a different opinion than me on this subject you’re not worthy of the vaping community or something, so maybe you can restrain yourself from such comments too.

Right after you refrain from comments about industry lied and industry (and industry alone) ought to pay for concerns that individual vapers have.

Honestly, the way I see this discussion so far is I called you out on the stuff that I see, or saw, you expressing in way that matches my assessment of not becoming of a vaping enthusiast. You defended yourself against that, but in so doing, have noted the industry, as it exists, is doing an adequate job. Yet, where we likely disagree is on whether or not the industry actually mislead people previously on diacetyl issue and whether it is now. I would say they didn't before and aren't now. But do think if you believe they did before, then arguably you are being mislead right now, but don't know cause you are dismissive about doing own testing, and thus concern isn't as great as you claim it to be, while trust factor is most significant factor. Yet trust has to start with one's own self and realization of responsibility in the situation. Whereas, I think you are perhaps operating under the idea that trust is entirely on them and their actions and until they prove (to you) otherwise, you are right to trust them now. And never mind the accusation that you've lodged already saying that they have previous mislead all vapers in the past. We can just ignore that and hope they are being honest with us now.

 

[Jman8]

The problem is most vapers have no idea some vendors are using potentially dangerous ingredients.

Can you share with us a potentially dangerous ingredient being used in eLiquids by say at least 40% of all current vapers, right now? I'm mostly curious how dangerous this actually is, for every substance on the planet is potentially dangerous (for at least some people).

 

[Jman8]

Only other thing I would note for now is that I do see that some in the diacetyl-free crowd are all about "let your wallet choose" and that is most likely the extent of their main concern. They will choose vendors who post information they want to hear and actively choose against vendors who either don't post or post information they don't want to hear (i.e. our liquids do contain diacetyl).

Yet, I consistently find (via implication or outright statements) many in this crowd who are telling vendors how they ought to run their business. This includes vendors having to:
- put mandatory warning labels on all their products
- post information online about simply if their products contain the ingredients they are concerned about
- (ideally) presenting lab results online or elsewhere that provide this information to a consumer.

We could review what FDA regulations have said, but I would say that this is precisely what half of the regulations were written for. The other half being "don't sell/market products to minors."

The crowd that is choosing with their wallet likely has many who aren't up on a soapbox claiming they are doing this, but just go about and choose in that fashion. The ones who are on the soapbox making it known that they are doing this, are at times, observably feeding ANTZ rhetoric and contributing to the inherent problems with the current set of FDA regulations, thus not becoming of a vaping enthusiasts, IMO.

One member of that crowd might say, "all I care about is warning labels. They don't need anything on their website if they just go with clear labels." Another will say, "labels are too small, and often ignored. Post the information online. Keep it simple." Another will say, "lab results posted online, or you are not really addressing this issue with the level of concern that exists among us many consumers." Then there will likely be several nuanced layers within each of those choices, as in, "labels are too long" or "labels are too short" or "lab results missed acetone info" or so on and so forth..

So FDA, in all its brilliant and bureaucratic wisdom has devised a plan for all vendors to be as comprehensive as possible with sharing all information about all possible concerns that all possible consumers have or might have in all possible futures. God bless them. For then, we vapers will be vaping entirely harmless vaping products. From all 6 vendors that are able to afford that sort of business model. With all 11 flavors that will be available on the market, and don't attract kids to vaping.

Okay, so maybe the products won't be "entirely harmless." But they ought to be 98% safer than combustible smokes. And I can't wait till we get to that point.

The one we had in 2014 (and before) when there were 10,000 vendors in the market and 15 million flavor options. And when there were zero deaths attributable to vaping.

I have running wager with anyone that dares/cares to bet which market will be 'safer' to vapers, the one the under regulated market offered or the one the heavily regulated market will offer? I'm betting it will be the former and thus far have zero takers on this wager. I wonder why that is?