tested e-juice vendors

[Jode]

Good morning. This is just a suggestion. I don't know if it is a good one or a poor one because it could open doors that let some (BT, BP, and any other groups trying to dissolve our right to vape) in, but it would put a lot of good pressure on juice vendors to self regulate too. With that said.....

How do he folks here feel about a sticky thread of vendors that have made real effort, not just a statement saying it, that shows their products are truly free of chemicals shown to be dangerous to vape like diacetyl? They could qualify by showing that they are currently member of AEMSA or willing to show independent study. It could also be a place that smaller vendors could direct their followers to a tab on their own sites to get donations to do testing. I firmly believe the general vaping community wants to know what is in the juice (not how it is made) they vape. I also think a lot of vendors want to be able to ensure their customers of this but don't always know how or have the funds to do that. Other things that could be found in this thread could be if one of our members emails their fav juice company they could let the rest of us know the answer they get from the query. This way the companies that are or have shown that their juice is tested or that they only use a flavor company like TFA won't get multiple queries. At least from our community. It would also let us decide if we as individuals want to put a bit of pressure on a company that does not respond with real answers but still insists on having that diecetyl free fuzzy banner.

I suppose the very least we could do this for our own suppliers. I think this could be really helpful not only for the consummers but for the suppliers. As an example I know a few members have taken their fav juice people to arms asking and have received answers but these things are scattered all over the web site buried quickly in new news. Understandable but I want to be able to go and see if the place I love is on a list. If not I can do my own investigation until I am satisfied and add them to list.

Any thoughts?

 

[Jode]

Ok obviously not a good idea I guess by the amount of views and lack of responses. No biggie. Can't blame a gal for trying. I was simply trying to see if we could as a group find a way to let people reading ECF know the vendors that have been checked out. Not as a guarantee of any safety measure, but more as a way to see that they at least are listening to the concerns of the customers.

I was thinking it would look something like this.

I know that I was interested in a couple of vendors and I found these on the AEMSA site as members that have passed the rigorous testing;

Mountain OAK Vapors
MadVapes
and Nicquid.

Or

I have emailed XYZ supplier and this is the response I got....... Great news.

or

I am wondering if anybody has checked out XYZ supplier with results so I don't duplicate question to them. I guess if a supplier is bugged enough though that they will put a better assurance on their websites.

The last example of how I thought this thread might be used is for suppliers themselves to say Hey, we are transparent and here are some ways we would like to show you. IDK, pics of their facility or a way to get lab results for any interested. Or if they are trying but need funding, if that is on their website.

I guess it is just me but I thought it would be easier if it was in one place rather then all over. I know there are companies out there that are trying their best to be as safe as possible and these are the places I want to support. I have no interest in DIY or unflavored. See, I am really new to this whole vaping thing so I am still trying to find my taste profile. The best way to do this is a bit of trial and error. It is so hard not knowing who is who and if the flashy sites are on the level.

Sorry, I really thought this would get more of a response, but if it is just wasted forum space a mod can close it out.

 

[Mazinny]

I for one believe it's a great idea in principle. I understand the concern of those who think this will provide ammunition for the anti-vaping lobby though. There are those that are not entirely convinced of the danger of diketone inhalation, which ones, are some more dangerous than others, at what doses, how do tests from one vendor compare to another etc....

I am all for transparency though. If a vendor makes a certain claim as to a particular diketone not being in their product, they must be able to back it up.

 

[Jode]

I for one believe it's a great idea in principle. I understand the concern of those who think this will provide ammunition for the anti-vaping lobby though. There are those that are not entirely convinced of the danger of diketone inhalation, which ones, are some more dangerous than others, at what doses, how do tests from one vendor compare to another etc....

I am all for transparency though. If a vendor makes a certain claim as to a particular diketone not being in their product, they must be able to back it up.

Got it!! I need to remind myself that Dr. F's study is still in the infancy stages and there is simply too much controversy over this. I guess I was just looking for a way for vapers that are concerned with this topic to take a bit of control before the big anti-vape monsters jump in. I will continue to hope for somebody bigger then little ol us to demand standards in this area.

 

[Flux]

Hmm, a bit poignant that over on Reddit, Suicide Bunny liquids have been independently tested to show about 10x the NIOSH-recommended daily dosage of acetyl propionyl...

http://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_...etyl_and_acetyl_propionyl_testing_on_suicide/

 

[Mazinny]

Got it!! I need to remind myself that Dr. F's study is still in the infancy stages and there is simply too much controversy over this. I guess I was just looking for a way for vapers that are concerned with this topic to take a bit of control before the big anti-vape monsters jump in. I will continue to hope for somebody bigger then little ol us to demand standards in this area.

Jode, in the absence of industry wide standards, there are steps you can take to minimize your risk.

Here's what i have decided to do for example :
1- Stay away from custard/cream/cake type flavors. I don't know for a fact, that these flavors are more harmful than others, but i will err on the side of caution. Thankfully i'm not a big fan of these flavors, so i'm not giving up much in terms of enjoyment.
2- Won't sub-ohm/go too high on wattage, or take very long puffs. Indications are thermal degradation might be an issue with e-liquid. No one has suggested that more toxins will be released at lower temperatures vs. higher temperatures, while the opposite is not true. Again, err on the side of caution, without giving up too much in my case.
3- Research vendors as much as i can, and get a sense of their safety protocol, and transparency.

It may turn out that these steps are unnecessary, or that they aren't enough. The only way to eliminate all risk in this regard, is to stop vaping altogether, a step i'm not prepared to take.

Here's what Dr. Farsalinos had to say on some of these topics. The suicide bunny issue was also discussed with the head of the lab that did the testing.

https://soundcloud.com/vp-live/sets/the-click-bang-archives

It is well worth a listen, if you have concerns.

Most important thing i got out of this, was that diacetyl and acetyl propionyl are substantially the same in molecular structure, and the risks are identical in vaping, according to both Dr. Farsalinos and Dr. Gillman.

 

[dabu406]

Ok obviously not a good idea I guess by the amount of views and lack of responses. No biggie. Can't blame a gal for trying. I was simply trying to see if we could as a group find a way to let people reading ECF know the vendors that have been checked out. Not as a guarantee of any safety measure, but more as a way to see that they at least are listening to the concerns of the customers.

I was thinking it would look something like this.

I know that I was interested in a couple of vendors and I found these on the AEMSA site as members that have passed the rigorous testing;

Mountain OAK Vapors
MadVapes
and Nicquid.

Or

I have emailed XYZ supplier and this is the response I got....... Great news.

or

I am wondering if anybody has checked out XYZ supplier with results so I don't duplicate question to them. I guess if a supplier is bugged enough though that they will put a better assurance on their websites.

The last example of how I thought this thread might be used is for suppliers themselves to say Hey, we are transparent and here are some ways we would like to show you. IDK, pics of their facility or a way to get lab results for any interested. Or if they are trying but need funding, if that is on their website.

I guess it is just me but I thought it would be easier if it was in one place rather then all over. I know there are companies out there that are trying their best to be as safe as possible and these are the places I want to support. I have no interest in DIY or unflavored. See, I am really new to this whole vaping thing so I am still trying to find my taste profile. The best way to do this is a bit of trial and error. It is so hard not knowing who is who and if the flashy sites are on the level.

Sorry, I really thought this would get more of a response, but if it is just wasted forum space a mod can close it out.

I think it is a fine idea! I am certainly interested in buying only from vendors who have tested their products. I noticed that mountain oak has the following note for each of their flavors clearly shown, and it makes me want to spend money there...

"This E-Liquid has been tested by a third party lab to insure that it is free of Harmful & Potentially Harmful Constituents: Acetoin, Acetyl Propionyl, Diacetyl, Acetylaldehyde, and Formaldehyde."

I can not see where the other two vendors you listed have something similar - not saying they don't, just did not see it. Can anyone tell me of other vendors which have tested and are clearly presenting that information to the customer? This is the kind of thing I want to support with my money!

 

[Jode]

I think it is a fine idea! I am certainly interested in buying only from vendors who have tested their products. I noticed that mountain oak has the following note for each of their flavors clearly shown, and it makes me want to spend money there...

"This E-Liquid has been tested by a third party lab to insure that it is free of Harmful & Potentially Harmful Constituents: Acetoin, Acetyl Propionyl, Diacetyl, Acetylaldehyde, and Formaldehyde."

I can not see where the other two vendors you listed have something similar - not saying they don't, just did not see it. Can anyone tell me of other vendors which have tested and are clearly presenting that information to the customer? This is the kind of thing I want to support with my money!

I just used those three as an example. Those are three juice venders that are members of AEMSA. You can look at the AEMSA site. I believe it is AEMSA | American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association

 

[Jode]

Hmm, a bit poignant that over on Reddit, Suicide Bunny liquids have been independently tested to show about 10x the NIOSH-recommended daily dosage of acetyl propionyl...

http://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_...etyl_and_acetyl_propionyl_testing_on_suicide/

I guess this shows both sides of the argument. I get that this causes a lot of heated posting and I feel a little badly for any vendor that is called out publicly, but if they want to make warm and fuzzy statements without proof, maybe they should be. One of the posters on that board compared this to pesticide free apples (organic). If I decide I want to make and sell organic apple sauce and make a bunch of claims, then I better know my source of apples in details. I can't just hide under a blanket and say well, they said the apples I used were organic so I trusted that. I need to either have at the ready test results from the apple supplier or do my own tests. If I cannot then I should not go into this business. I am not a chemist and I do not understand all these numbers so I have to rely on studies done by those that do understand it. If doctors that have shown to be supportive of the vaping community say this is dangerous then I think we should be listening even if it means certain bans or restrictions. I too really want to believe I have made a move in a direction of reduced harm by switching to vaping, but if this is not true I want to know so I can make an informed choice again. That's all. If others chose to continue to make juice for themselves without care then that will be their choice.

I don't know where you stand from your comment Flux so this response isn't so much toward your post but more toward the link. Yes, it is controversial, but also very important to talk about.

 

[Jode]

Jode, in the absence of industry wide standards, there are steps you can take to minimize your risk.

Here's what i have decided to do for example :
1- Stay away from custard/cream/cake type flavors. I don't know for a fact, that these flavors are more harmful than others, but i will err on the side of caution. Thankfully i'm not a big fan of these flavors, so i'm not giving up much in terms of enjoyment.
2- Won't sub-ohm/go too high on wattage, or take very long puffs. Indications are thermal degradation might be an issue with e-liquid. No one has suggested that more toxins will be released at lower temperatures vs. higher temperatures, while the opposite is not true. Again, err on the side of caution, without giving up too much in my case.
3- Research vendors as much as i can, and get a sense of their safety protocol, and transparency.

It may turn out that these steps are unnecessary, or that they aren't enough. The only way to eliminate all risk in this regard, is to stop vaping altogether, a step i'm not prepared to take.

Here's what Dr. Farsalinos had to say on some of these topics. The suicide bunny issue was also discussed with the head of the lab that did the testing.

https://soundcloud.com/vp-live/sets/the-click-bang-archives

It is well worth a listen, if you have concerns.

Most important thing i got out of this, was that diacetyl and acetyl propionyl are substantially the same in molecular structure, and the risks are identical in vaping, according to both Dr. Farsalinos and Dr. Gillman.

I am following all those steps anyhow. I do not sub ohm (don't even understand how too, haha), I do try to research vendors but that is harder then I thought it would be. I have emailed a few of the places I get juice from, all fairly big names, and really only received feel good responses. I could (and do) stay away from the buttery, custardy, caky flavors now, but what guarantee do I have that these flavors are not used in some part in any juice? Iow, I don't know what they use to get the flavors. It doesn't have to have cake, custard like or buttery in the description. I will make something up as an example. Peach delight- a nice peachy, heavenly vape that will make you swear you are eating a peach icy. Well this sounds safe, but how would I know if the very thing that makes it heavenly is a flavor laced with diketones. I don't. I didn't listen to the link yet as I am very hard of hearing and it is not captioned, but will have somebody else have a listen and tell me about it. I am kind of throwing my hands up here because I guess I am just proving that this thread would not work. Too many questions still. I do know one thing though... We can avoid talking about it but this will not stop the media from twisting it all around.

 

[SmokinRabbit]

I guess this shows both sides of the argument. I get that this causes a lot of heated posting and I feel a little badly for any vendor that is called out publicly, but if they want to make warm and fuzzy statements without proof, maybe they should be. One of the posters on that board compared this to pesticide free apples (organic). If I decide I want to make and sell organic apple sauce and make a bunch of claims, then I better know my source of apples in details. I can't just hide under a blanket and say well, they said the apples I used were organic so I trusted that...

I wholeheartedly agree. It's about honesty in business. If you can't be 100% sure of your claims, than don't make them.

I think there's a lot of juice makers who jumped on the bandwagon a while back when the first inklings of diacetyl came to light. They trusted what they were told and passed the information along. Some claimed they were diacetyl free because they believed it, even though they didn't confirm it with their own testing... and some just added "no diacetyl" to their website because it was the catch phrase to add.

However, at this point, now that we all know what we know... especially with the latest Dr. Farsalinos study, vendors should now be taken to task. There is absolutely no excuse for any of them to claim "no diacetyl" without proof. They need to back up their claims.

Even if we want to give them the benefit of the doubt for learning in a new industry for what's happened in the past, that's fine... but moving forward - NO MORE. If you are going to claim your juice is Diacetyl-Free (or anything-free), you better be prepared to back that up. If you can't, you might as well be an out-and-out liar.

 

[Tangaroav]

I think it is a very good idea. A place where a list of vendors that can prove that their liquids have been tested, showing actual results and by whom the tests were performed and for what chemicals, is the minimum that we the consumer of e-liquids should have.

As Dr. Farsalinos test shows, the vaping industry has not been able to self regulate. Big name premium juices, like Suicide bunny have been shown to be negligent and incompetent, ( to say the least), and have been selling dangerous e-liquids, while declaring them free of harmful ingredients. Worst, over 75% of the +/-150 e-juices tested by Dr. Farsalinos have failed the test.

I can imagine how even worst the results of the same tests being performed on e-juices made in the back shops of most small, ( and big), B&M shops would have been... frightening.

For the ANTZ, this gross failure of self regulation is probably the last straw that confirms that govt regulations are needed .

 

[Jode]

Even if we want to give them the benefit of the doubt for learning in a new industry for what's happened in the past, that's fine... but moving forward - NO MORE. If you are going to claim your juice is Diacetyl-Free (or anything-free), you better be prepared to back that up. If you can't, you might as well be an out-and-out liar.

I think it is a very good idea. A place where a list of vendors that can prove that their liquids have been tested, showing actual rresults and by whom the tests were performed and for what chemicals, is the minimum that we the consumer of e-liquids should have.

As Dr. Farsalinos test shows, the vaping industry has not been able to self regulate. Big name premium juices, like Suicide bunny have been shown to be negligent and incompetent, ( to say the least), and have been selling dangerous e-liquids, while declaring them free of harmful ingredients. Worst, over 75% of the +/-150 e-juices tested by Dr. Farsalinos have failed the test.

I can imagine how even worst the results of the same tests being performed on e-juices made in the back shops of most small, ( and big), B&M shops would have been... frightening.

For the ANTZ, this gross failure of self regulation is probably the last straw that confirms that govt regulations are needed .

Ok, so far we know that vendors on the AEMSA site have done testing or are waiting for results. We know that Suicide Bunny showed poor results on some very popular juices. I know there are some people that have emailed their choice of vendor with varying results. I guess my question now is if we take the time to email a vendor and they give a standard, "we trust where we get our juice", should we call them out on here or give them more time. I do not want to start a witch hunt but don't know what else will work. I hate to say it but sometimes people will not react unless pushed to do so. I ask because I have one reply that I am not too sure if I have been handled (just told something to make me feel good again) or if they are earnest. I did reply saying I would not order again until I heard more sound proof, but I doubt they care about one little customer. Should I warn them before disclosing an email they thought was private?

 

[Mazinny]

Ok, so far we know that vendors on the AEMSA site have done testing or are waiting for results. We know that Suicide Bunny showed poor results on some very popular juices. I know there are some people that have emailed their choice of vendor with varying results. I guess my question now is if we take the time to email a vendor and they give a standard, "we trust where we get our juice", should we call them out on here or give them more time. I do not want to start a witch hunt but don't know what else will work. I hate to say it but sometimes people will not react unless pushed to do so. I ask because I have one reply that I am not too sure if I have been handled (just told something to make me feel good again) or if they are earnest. I did reply saying I would not order again until I heard more sound proof, but I doubt they care about one little customer. Should I warn them before disclosing an email they thought was private?

It's really not a witch-hunt imo, this is a fledgling industry that needs to get it's act together. One could make a claim that it's the flavor houses we should really be going after. But remember, the flavors they produce are meant for the food industry. They changed the diacetyl in their flavors to acetyl propyniol, essentially the same thing so that they can state emphatically that we don't have diacetyl in our flavors.

Ultimately it's the vendors responsibility to make sure the product doesn't include any 'nasties'. They are the one's who should pressure the flavor suppliers, and we are the one's who should put pressure on the vendors.

 

[Tangaroav]

I wholeheartedly agree. It's about honesty in business. If you can't be 100% sure of your claims, than don't make them.

I think there's a lot of juice makers who jumped on the bandwagon a while back when the first inklings of diacetyl came to light. They trusted what they were told and passed the information along. Some claimed they were diacetyl free because they believed it, even though they didn't confirm it with their own testing... and some just added "no diacetyl" to their website because it was the catch phrase to add.

However, at this point, now that we all know what we know... especially with the latest Dr. Farsalinos study, vendors should now be taken to task. There is absolutely no excuse for any of them to claim "no diacetyl" without proof. They need to back up their claims.

Even if we want to give them the benefit of the doubt for learning in a new industry for what's happened in the past, that's fine... but moving forward - NO MORE. If you are going to claim your juice is Diacetyl-Free (or anything-free), you better be prepared to back that up. If you can't, you might as well be an out-and-out liar.

You are right, the benifits of the doubt no longer applies. Here is a good exemple someone posted in another thread. A popular vendor that claims their e-juice is safe with a posted Diacetyl free report. This vendor, does exactly what Doc. Farsalinos warned us against. They provide an incomplete test and it is posted with the intention of fooling their customers. It is public knowledge that their e-juices contain the same harmful ingredients as Diacetyl , above the existing regulation limits. https://www.facebook.com/TheSuicideBunny

This is shameful behavior as the date on the analysis shows that they were made after Farsalinos' study and published report . They know which chemicals are present, they know their dangerous levels and they are telling their un-informed customer that their product is safe.

As you mention above, NO MORE .

 

[Mazinny]

I think it is a very good idea. A place where a list of vendors that can prove that their liquids have been tested, showing actual results and by whom the tests were performed and for what chemicals, is the minimum that we the consumer of e-liquids should have.

As Dr. Farsalinos test shows, the vaping industry has not been able to self regulate. Big name premium juices, like Suicide bunny have been shown to be negligent and incompetent, ( to say the least), and have been selling dangerous e-liquids, while declaring them free of harmful ingredients. Worst, over 75% of the +/-150 e-juices tested by Dr. Farsalinos have failed the test.

I can imagine how even worst the results of the same tests being performed on e-juices made in the back shops of most small, ( and big), B&M shops would have been... frightening.

For the ANTZ, this gross failure of self regulation is probably the last straw that confirms that govt regulations are needed .

Let's not forget the flavor houses. While it's true that these flavors are intended for the food industry, a lot of them are now marketing their wares to vapers.First they flat out lied, then when they were caught they substituted A P for diacetyl, essentially the same thing. Their hands are not clean either.

 

[Tangaroav]

Let's not forget the flavor houses. While it's true that these flavors are intended for the food industry, a lot of them are now marketing their wares to vapers.First they flat out lied, then when they were caught they substituted A P for diacetyl, essentially the same thing. Their hands are not clean either.

Very good point about flavor houses and one that should be taken seriously by all DIY's . The flavors are the origin of harmful substances in our vapes.

 

[kevbow]

You are right, the benifits of the doubt no longer applies. Here is a good exemple someone posted in another thread. A popular vendor that claims their e-juice is safe with a posted Diacetyl free report. This vendor, does exactly what Doc. Farsalinos warned us against. They provide an incomplete test and it is posted with the intention of fooling their customers. It is public knowledge that their e-juices contain the same harmful ingredients as Diacetyl , above the existing regulation limits. https://www.facebook.com/TheSuicideBunny

This is shameful behavior as the date on the analysis shows that they were made after Farsalinos' study and published report . They know which chemicals are present, they know their dangerous levels and they are telling their un-informed customer that their product is safe.

As you mention above, NO MORE .

Talk about fooling their customers, this is posted on their website:
Home - Suicide Bunny

"The other guys go blue in the face talking about quality. We just do it, and we’re relentless until it’s perfect. Our e-liquids don’t hit your hands until they’ve gone through a quality control process like no other. If it’s not built out of the very best ingredients to make the very best e-liquid in America, it’s not a Suicide Bunny product. Simple as that."

 

[Jode]

It's really not a witch-hunt imo, this is a fledgling industry that needs to get it's act together. One could make a claim that it's the flavor houses we should really be going after. But remember, the flavors they produce are meant for the food industry. They changed the diacetyl in their flavors to acetyl propyniol, essentially the same thing so that they can state emphatically that we don't have diacetyl in our flavors.

Ultimately it's the vendors responsibility to make sure the product doesn't include any 'nasties'. They are the one's who should pressure the flavor suppliers, and we are the one's who should put pressure on the vendors.

Exactly my point that I made earlier on the one making a final product needs to test all the sub products before make blind promises of their quality or safety. This is why we see so many in the food industry clearly post statements to limit their liability. You see comments on menus about raw beef, peanut and other allergies and a myriad of other statements. Most of these statements are more about protecting their ...., but at least they are there. It lets the consumer make a truly informed choice as to whether or not to eat at that facility. It could mean loss of customers but it is the responsible thing to do.

 

[Mr.Mann]

It's really not a witch-hunt imo, this is a fledgling industry that needs to get it's act together. One could make a claim that it's the flavor houses we should really be going after. But remember, the flavors they produce are meant for the food industry. They changed the diacetyl in their flavors to acetyl propyniol, essentially the same thing so that they can state emphatically that we don't have diacetyl in our flavors.

Ultimately it's the vendors responsibility to make sure the product doesn't include any 'nasties'. They are the one's who should pressure the flavor suppliers, and we are the one's who should put pressure on the vendors.

No, not a "witch hunt," but a which hunt (meaning, we want to know which).

Yes, we should try and aim for liquids devoid of as many avoidable risks as possible, but we shouldn't also make it out to seem like there are scores of vapers experiencing respiratory illnesses that are caused by ingredients that vendors are knowingly and unknowingly using (not saying you did that, Maz). If there was evidence that vapers were experiencing issues with lung function and it was determined to be solely from diacetyl (an substitutes), then the vendors that are misleading their customers about their ingredients should be hunted.