The Diketone Debate: Which Position Do you Take?

[Mr.Mann]

Not going to get into the intricacies of this issue in the OP, though it is wrought with many, but I want to glean as much as I can from votes for specific stances. I hope to get votes from as many posters as possible. I will also run this poll on several other forums to get as much of a picture as possible. So with regard to the inhalation of diketones in eliquid, speak your mind.

If this thread actually gets posts, please, lets keep to the issues. Let's not flame others with different opinions. No attacking vendors. No attacking posters. Only talk about specific vendors that use it if you have proof that they use it.

Vote at the top of the page.​

If you don't feel your position was included, don't vote or find the one that best fits it. If you choose not to vote, but have a position that you want to discuss, state it.

 

[AndriaD]

I was wondering what the actual issues are, for these substances, so I went searching the other night. Found a couple of technical papers that *should* be trustworthy -- CDC published, but then we see how ignorant the CDC is about e-cigs --and some info on wikipedia.

Apparently the problem that all these substances can cause, bronchiolitis obliterans ("popcorn lung"), is the actual, and permanent, destruction of the lungs. Damage usually presents as obstructed airways, and I found a couple of mentions that this airway obstruction can be misdiagnosed as asthma and/or COPD.

I really think that for the benefit of everyone, the presence of these chemicals, even traces of them, should be mandatorily disclosed; those who already have airway obstruction problems have no business vaping this stuff or even being around it, at all. Those who do not currently have any issues with their lungs should also be aware of it, and have the freedom to choose alternatives, because in those with healthy lungs, the damage from these chemicals can be so slow that it's not noticeable until the problem has become irreversible.

Some people have said things like, "well, there are diketones in cigarettes." Yes, there are, and is not one possible outcome of cigarette smoking, COPD/emphysema? Perhaps sometimes it's not COPD/emphysema, but has only been misdiagnosed as such, and is actually symptomatic of bronchiolitis obliterans.

Andria

 

[Mr.Mann]

Not sure if you actually voted, Andria, but thanks for that post. I didn't want to post anything specific as I wanted to try and step back as much as possible from taking a hard-line stance. It's not that I don't have one, but for the purposes of this thread, I wanted to leave it open.

I asked the moderators to amend the second option to, simply: it should be mandatorily disclosed so customers have clear options.

 

[AndriaD]

I did vote, and that 2nd option was my vote. I'm all in favor of consumer choice -- maybe some people don't care how dangerous those chemicals are. But I do think that anything which contains them should be clearly marked as such; a lot of us already have asthma or COPD, and even those who don't have lung problems, may not want to create a future problem.

But I have a feeling, given the nanny tendency of our gov't, that the first option will probably end up being the one that our nanny chooses -- if it's bad for anybody, then it must be bad for everybody. Too bad they don't take that stance with regard to sulfites, which can cause complete pulmonary collapse in asthmatics -- but it's in so many different processed foods, I have to read labels like a hawk to make sure I don't consume it, and even label reading doesn't guarantee that its presence will be disclosed; I've had to learn what foods are particularly prone to being color-preserved with sulfiting agents -- dehydated potatoes, bananas, broccoli, and blueberries seem to be the worst offenders, simply because drying makes those foods turn brown. Sulfur dioxide would work just as well, but apparently it's more costly. So the gov't lets Big Ag save a few pennies, at the potential cost of killing asthmatics.

Andria

 

[Mr.Mann]

I did vote, and that 2nd option was my vote. I'm all in favor of consumer choice -- maybe some people don't care how dangerous those chemicals are. But I do think that anything which contains them should be clearly marked as such; a lot of us already have asthma or COPD, and even those who don't have lung problems, may not want to create a future problem.

But I have a feeling, given the nanny tendency of our gov't, that the first option will probably end up being the one that our nanny chooses -- if it's bad for anybody, then it must be bad for everybody. Too bad they don't take that stance with regard to sulfites, which can cause complete pulmonary collapse in asthmatics -- but it's in so many different processed foods, I have to read labels like a hawk to make sure I don't consume it, and even label reading doesn't guarantee that its presence will be disclosed; I've had to learn what foods are particularly prone to being color-preserved with sulfiting agents -- dehydated potatoes, bananas, broccoli, and blueberries seem to be the worst offenders, simply because drying makes those foods turn brown. Sulfur dioxide would work just as well, but apparently it's more costly. So the gov't lets Big Ag save a few pennies, at the potential cost of killing asthmatics.

Andria

Since it's just us here right now, let me take this opportunity to tell you that I have read many of your posts and you write with such clarity that anytime I see you've made a post I know it will be worth reading. I am thrilled that you have made the first post here -- too many times the first post in a thread can be troll-esque.

But, in regards to diketones, it is such a difficult thing for me to grapple with because when you DIY you can find out just how many flavors actually do have this. It is actually mind blowing! It's not easy to avoid when you want to "build" multi-note flavorings, unless you want to omit a very common note that many of us have come to appreciate. And it's even made more difficult by flavoring companies not all disclosing. So even vendors won't always know. Irritating (so to speak).

 

[Pictor]

I'd have liked an option that states something like: I don't mind small trace amounts in some - but disclosure is vital.

Purely because it seems some flavours are virtually impossible to produce without at least a tiny bit of one/all of them.
I voted for the second option as it's closest.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I'd have liked an option that states something like: I don't mind small trace amounts in some - but disclosure is vital.

Purely because it seems some flavours are virtually impossible to produce without at least a tiny bit of one/all of them.
I voted for the second option as it's closest.

Yeah, unfortunately I don't have the ability to amend it on my own because I would've like to have had that kinda option (but I din't consider those finer details until ater I hit post). But, hopefully the second option encapsulates many stances with all of them being predicated on one thing: disclosure.

 

[clnire]

I voted #2 also for the same reason Pictor mentioned. I dabble in DIY and doing more and more. I am aware of the issues and have done a lot of research as to flavors that have, or could have, diketones. Seems it is hard to avoid to get certain flavors. I damaged my lungs enough smoking for 40 years so not looking to damage them more, but I am also not paranoid about it. I do agree these ingredients should be disclosed so vapers can make up their own minds.

 

[AndriaD]

Since it's just us here right now, let me take this opportunity to tell you that I have read many of your posts and you write with such clarity that anytime I see you've made a post I know it will be worth reading. I am thrilled that you have made the first post here -- too many times the first post in a thread can be troll-esque.

Thank you. I really appreciate you saying that; I'm just emerging from that "3 months smoke-free" depression cycle, and it's really nice to be appreciated.

But, in regards to diketones, it is such a difficult thing for me to grapple with because when you DIY you can find out just how many flavors actually do have this. It is actually mind blowing! It's not easy to avoid when you want to "build" multi-note flavorings, unless you want to omit a very common note that many of us have come to appreciate. And it's even made more difficult by flavoring companies not all disclosing. So even vendors won't always know. Irritating (so to speak).

Extremely! I'm just beginning to get very serious with DIY, and with my list of 'stock' flavors, I've been going over bullcityvapor's flavor collection with a virtual magnifying glass, trying to find alternates to flavors that do contain them -- bullcityvapor seems the best source, to me, because they do identify the problem flavors very clearly -- at least, I suppose, as far as *they* know. I note that Capella particularly seems alert to the problem, and have a number of "v2" flavors, reformulated to not contain the troublesome ingredients. TFA has apparently created some whole new flavors, which mimic the troublesome flavors but don't contain the bad ingredients ("Vanilla Swirl" as opposed to "Vanilla Custard").

But, I'm getting into DIY because I find I really like the "bakery" flavors, and some of those seem to be particularly problematic -- anything with a custard, egg, butter, or cream note, traditionally *have* contained at least acetoin and/or acetyl propionyl, even if they don't contain diacetyl itself, but all of those chemicals can cause the obstructed-airway problem. Thankfully most of the manufacturers do seem to be either eliminating those ingredients, or reformulating existing products with alternative ingredients.

It would seem that at this point, the major problem is with pre-made ejuice; most juice makers aren't going to tell you exactly what's in the juice, for proprietary trade-secret reasons if nothing else, but this leaves new vapers, and/or those who aren't interested in DIY, at a great deal of risk. That's why I think that one of the "regulations" that the FDA seems intent on making should be the disclosure of those ingredients wherever they exist. They may be safe to eat, but they're definitely not safe to inhale.

Andria

 

[B2L]

I agree with Andria and Pictor (and agree with your comment about Andrias posts) that it certainly needs to be disclosed if it is used in any juice/ flavoring.

The issues as I see them are we really don't know what the "safe" threshold for inhalation of these compounds are and that it is not always disclosed to the maker of juice, by flavoring suppliers, that it may well be an ingredient in flavorings that they use in their product. A juice seller can legitimately say we do not add DTs to our juice but that doesn't mean that they are not in there.

I have researched it and although I believe that it is harmful at some point (the poison is in the dose), I love custard type flavors and still vape them, in moderation. My reason for vaping is harm reduction, realizing that harm elimination is essentially out of the question.

I did not vote (yet), my vote will be the second option when I don't want it is removed from the equation. It's not that I don't care but that the information I have found to this point has not demonstrated that harm will come at the low levels I inhale. If that changes I will re-evaluate my position.

 

[Pictor]

Yeah, unfortunately I don't have the ability to amend it on my own because I would've like to have had that kinda option (but I din't consider those finer details until ater I hit post). But, hopefully the second option encapsulates many stances with all of them being predicated on one thing: disclosure.

I can easily understand the reason it's not included - always difficult to encompass everything, and some things always occur after something is irretrievable

I do admire the companies that are so obviously taking pains to test, disclose and also re-formulate what they offer, rather than just rely on flavour manufacturers assurances (or not). One that has stood out on all those points has been Thevapourbar - I would love to try some of theirs, but not only is international shipping a two stage affair of separate payment, they only offer 30ml bottles. It becomes a stumbling block for people wanting to try something.

Hopefully, many retailers will be viewing your poll and taking note of the general feeling regarding this issue, and hopefully acting accordingly & openly.
It's obvious: the fewer hazards, the less for governments to point the finger at.

 

[Mr.Mann]

Thank you. I really appreciate you saying that; I'm just emerging from that "3 months smoke-free" depression cycle, and it's really nice to be appreciated.




Extremely! I'm just beginning to get very serious with DIY, and with my list of 'stock' flavors, I've been going over bullcityvapor's flavor collection with a virtual magnifying glass, trying to find alternates to flavors that do contain them -- bullcityvapor seems the best source, to me, because they do identify the problem flavors very clearly -- at least, I suppose, as far as *they* know. I note that Capella particularly seems alert to the problem, and have a number of "v2" flavors, reformulated to not contain the troublesome ingredients. TFA has apparently created some whole new flavors, which mimic the troublesome flavors but don't contain the bad ingredients ("Vanilla Swirl" as opposed to "Vanilla Custard").

But, I'm getting into DIY because I find I really like the "bakery" flavors, and some of those seem to be particularly problematic -- anything with a custard, egg, butter, or cream note, traditionally *have* contained at least acetoin and/or acetyl propionyl, even if they don't contain diacetyl itself, but all of those chemicals can cause the obstructed-airway problem. Thankfully most of the manufacturers do seem to be either eliminating those ingredients, or reformulating existing products with alternative ingredients.

It would seem that at this point, the major problem is with pre-made ejuice; most juice makers aren't going to tell you exactly what's in the juice, for proprietary trade-secret reasons if nothing else, but this leaves new vapers, and/or those who aren't interested in DIY, at a great deal of risk. That's why I think that one of the "regulations" that the FDA seems intent on making should be the disclosure of those ingredients wherever they exist. They may be safe to eat, but they're definitely not safe to inhale.

Andria

I love what Bullcityvapor is doing and will promote them because of it. A lot of these vendors don't only use what we may feel are traditional flavoring manufacturers, so many of the manufacturers they use may not even feel a need to disclose such things. I know of a one non-traditional company that includes all the pertinent info in their MSDS, but that is not necessarily commonplace.

Knowing whether a liquid has diketones is nowhere near knowing much more about the contents/flavorings used, so vendors, I think, should at the very least try and identify every liquid they make that has them (or even state that they do NOT know). But, most vendors will hold on to every possible advantage they can in a market so saturated.

 

[Zelphie]

I voted. I'm for #2 mostly and for practical purposes, but ultimately for # 1 as a personal worry free fantasy and to help those out who would never learn of the issue or care. But then again with # 1, I'm inevitably getting into the infringement of other personal rights. (to be free to decide, free to not care, or to be ignorant or whatever who am I to decide which they are). I agree with an amendment, it would make it productive and less what iffy, especially to OCD'ers
I voted # 1, wish I voted # 2.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I voted. I'm for #2 mostly and for practical purposes, but ultimately for # 1 as a personal worry free fantasy and to help those out who would never learn of the issue or care. But then again with # 1, I'm inevitably getting into the infringement of other personal rights. (to be free to decide, free to not care, or to be ignorant or whatever who am I to decide which they are). I agree with an amendment, it would make it productive and less what iffy, especially to OCD'ers
I voted # 1, wish I voted # 2.

hahahahaha! Can't help but smile. That sounds like exactly the type of internal dialogue I have! I wish a moderator would've amended it. I did my best at the time.

 

[Zurd]

I voted for "I have little to no idea what the issues are, but I would like to know." It's the closest answer for me.

I think more study should be done for sure. But right now, with what I've read, even if there's some trace in our liquids I really don't think it's an issue.

 

[Mia11]

I voted #2. I'm all for informed decisions. I want to know if diketones are present, and in what concentration. I would also like a standard of reliable testing, so that these disclosures actually have some validity. But after that, I think it should remain a personal choice that we make for ourselves.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I voted #2. I'm all for informed decisions. I want to know if diketones are present, and in what concentration. I would also like a standard of reliable testing, so that these disclosures actually have some validity. But after that, I think it should remain a personal choice that we make for ourselves.

I've been thinking about the whole disclosure bit, and I think that part of disclosure should/could be that if a vendor does not know or have accessible and verifiable evidence that the flavors do NOT have diketones, they should say "diketone presence unknown." For those flavors that are known to have them, it could simply say "this liquid contains diketones." I don't really like the idea of the "trace" because that veers too closely to being an actual quantification but without any type of qualification. Like any vendor would say, "this liquid has a ton of diketones!" In my opinion, from the eliquid vendor side, it should be either A) it does have diketones B) it does not have diketones and here's the proof, or C) it is unknown if there is any detectable amount of diketones. Now, for flavoring manufacturers, they may have more of an ability to get into the finer details since they actually made the freakin' flavors, but vendors need to CYA.

 

[Mia11]

I've been thinking about the whole disclosure bit, and I think that part of disclosure should/could be that if a vendor does not know or have accessible and verifiable evidence that the flavors do NOT have diketones, they should say "diketone presence unknown." For those flavors that are known to have them, it could simply say "this liquid contains diketones." I don't really like the idea of the "trace" because that veers too closely to being an actual quantification but without any type of qualification. Like any vendor would say, "this liquid has a ton of diketones!" In my opinion, from the eliquid vendor side, it should be either A) it does have diketones B) it does not have diketones and here's the proof, or C) it is unknown if there is any detectable amount of diketones. Now, for flavoring manufacturers, they may have more of an ability to get into the finer details since they actually made the freakin' flavors, but vendors need to CYA.

I understand that so many flavors contain trace amounts that it's not going to be reasonable to count out every juice with trace amounts. There won't be much left to vape!
OK, at this point it's reasonable for me if a vendor says "this juice does not have diketones and here's the proof." But then, give me some actual proof.

I predict this poll is going to catch on fire very soon. Hot topic.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I understand that so many flavors contain trace amounts that it's not going to be reasonable to count out every juice with trace amounts. There won't be much left to vape!
OK, at this point it's reasonable for me if a vendor says "this juice does not have diketones and here's the proof." But then, give me some actual proof.

Not trying to get into the whole wonkiness of it (not like I can anyway), but the way I see it, as soon as we need to talk in ppb and ppm we are talking trace. But trace with some things isn't really trace. Honestly, if it was in a liquid in truly heavy amounts, it would be nasty as hell and unvapeable, so even the liquids that do contain "levels much higher than safety limits" (Dr.F), technically speaking by being measured in μg, it still could be construed as trace (I hope I got all that correct). Based on the highly sensitive testing procedures that need to take place to accurately asses the levels in these liquids, the whole issue is basically dealing on the trace level -- which is why some GC-MS testing wasn't accurately telling the truth. The problems that may exist can be caused by what some feel are insignificant levels, which is why I hesitate to accept and lend any credibility to a vendor saying their liquids contain "trace" levels of diketones; for the more simple truth is, in a nutshell, their liquid contains diketones -- until we see just how trace it really is, it merely has it. And while there are a slew of flavors that have it in various levels, there are a whole bunch that have none at all (or so I've heard. LOL).

I predict this poll is going to catch on fire very soon. Hot topic.

And with the help of all of the level-headed posters such as you all that already posted, we can keep this civil.

 

[Sirius]

I do not want Diketone in my e-liquids. The oxidation of different types of alcohols produced keytones I understand and many liquor stores are pulling some flavored whiskeys from the shelf. Fireball being one of them.

ETA
Perhaps it will be found that some flavoring just should not be used in the production of e-liquids and those can be avoided.
More testing should be done and disclosure should be mandatory. Transparency in a vendor means everything to me and is a factor in whether I use that vendor or not. No bathtub juices for me thank you..lol