The Muffin Man and The Milk Man - Company's response to Diacetyl, Acetoin or Acetyl Propionyl

[Icey]

I felt I needed to step in about this.

For a long time since 2008, vaping has become my ideal sanctuary of my personal vaping needs. Long story short, I've done consistent health tests primarily lung, heart, & blood. Nothing could be found that deemed negative that would be suspected from e-cigs in this day of age. However, they only thing they have ever found two years back was high cholesterol and mind you I only weight 150, healthy, but unfortunately, it's hereditary. I will personally say regardless which device, tank, or even watts/volts used hasn't affected me either. However... provided social connections with in the family and friends who enjoy vaping as much as me did say (including myself) have noticed a few juices caused a few or brief moments of wheezing when breathing in after a vape was exhaled. Take this as grain of salt. Again as other posters mentioned everyone is different and reacts differently to vaping.

I personally am comfortable with this sort of topic made because I sure as hell wouldn't be comfortable vaping on any products containing diacetyl. I can defend vaping, pg, vg, nicotine, but I for one cannot stand idly by looking the other way of diacetyl. It's incredibly shameful & dishonest to any vendor not providing hard data that they're not using this sort of dangerous ingredient. I was deeply stunned about five pawns. I barely buy it but still. I vape it on rare occasions for its luxurious taste. It's making me step back and making me look at vaping juice to a whole new perceptive now. And believe me, I'm a die hard juice hunter as anyone else on here as well outside of ECF. Now I gotta go back to the regular juices in the past that I trust and love.

 

[lexalove]

I'm shocked at the ignorance displayed by some of the posters on this thread. People insisting that it's the consumers responsibility to test and prove that the product sold to them and that they purchased in good faith is safe for consumption! In what other area of consumer related products is this the case? It is clearly the responsibility of the manufacturer who is offering his products for public sale to ensure he isn't exposing the public to what may be harmful substances. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knows this to be the case.

It's sad to say but I think the only solution to the problem, while these 'hard of thinking people' still exist is for government regulation to force manufacturers to test their products and to make those results public.

Many of us don't want government regulation, we fear it, but what these people who oppose consumers demanding test results from manufacturers they buy e-liquid from fail to realise is that the 'perceived' secrecy and lack of transparency from some in the e-liquid industry is exactly the excuse those in power are looking for to regulate or even ban vaping.

So contrary to being a 'witch hunt' as it has been described, it is those of us looking for open, transparent dialogue with e-liquid manufacturers regarding the content of their liquids who are trying to save this vaping industry that we are all invested in.

 

[sparkky1]

I'm shocked at the ignorance displayed by some of the posters on this thread. People insisting that it's the consumers responsibility to test and prove that the product sold to them and that they purchased in good faith is safe for consumption! In what other area of consumer related products is this the case? It is clearly the responsibility of the manufacturer who is offering his products for public sale to ensure he isn't exposing the public to what may be harmful substances. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knows this to be the case.

It's sad to say but I think the only solution to the problem, while these 'hard of thinking people' still exist is for government regulation to force manufacturers to test their products and to make those results public.

Many of us don't want government regulation, we fear it, but what these people who oppose consumers demanding test results from manufacturers they buy e-liquid from fail to realise is that the 'perceived' secrecy and lack of transparency from some in the e-liquid industry is exactly the excuse those in power are looking for to regulate or even ban vaping.

So contrary to being a 'witch hunt' as it has been described, it is those of us looking for open, transparent dialogue with e-liquid manufacturers regarding the content of their liquids who are trying to save this vaping industry that we are all invested in.

Can you please explain to me how any of the artificial flavorings as "none" of which have been approved from anyone to be safe for inhalation to be the responsibility of the seller ?
You couldn't honestly tell / show me how your diacetyl free juice is any less harmful, my point is not to disagree with you but help you understand that any of these artificial flavors were never designed with the intent of inhaling.They make this stuff called glue and some people / kids eat the stuff, is it made to eat ? If you truly wanted to take out the idea of vaping a toxin then why not just go flavorless or at the very least cut your flavor % in half.

 

[skoony]

It's sad to say but I think the only solution to the problem, while these 'hard of thinking people' still exist is for government regulation to force manufacturers to test their products and to make those results public.

What are they supposed to test for? As of right now there is nothing that
can be proven harmful. Not one vaper can be said to have been harmed
by vaping.(allergic reactions not included)

Regards
Mike

 

[Lessifer]

I'm shocked at the ignorance displayed by some of the posters on this thread. People insisting that it's the consumers responsibility to test and prove that the product sold to them and that they purchased in good faith is safe for consumption! In what other area of consumer related products is this the case? It is clearly the responsibility of the manufacturer who is offering his products for public sale to ensure he isn't exposing the public to what may be harmful substances. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knows this to be the case.

It's sad to say but I think the only solution to the problem, while these 'hard of thinking people' still exist is for government regulation to force manufacturers to test their products and to make those results public.

Many of us don't want government regulation, we fear it, but what these people who oppose consumers demanding test results from manufacturers they buy e-liquid from fail to realise is that the 'perceived' secrecy and lack of transparency from some in the e-liquid industry is exactly the excuse those in power are looking for to regulate or even ban vaping.

So contrary to being a 'witch hunt' as it has been described, it is those of us looking for open, transparent dialogue with e-liquid manufacturers regarding the content of their liquids who are trying to save this vaping industry that we are all invested in.

Just out of curiosity, what is your common sense threshold for "harmful substances?"

There are various substances in vaping that CAN be harmful, it's a matter of dosage and degree though. There's actually more evidence of our nicotine being "harmful" in our dosages than there is of any of our flavorings.

 

[lexalove]

Can you please explain to me how any of the artificial flavorings as "none" of which have been approved from anyone to be safe for inhalation to be the responsibility of the seller ?
You couldn't honestly tell / show me how your diacetyl free juice is any less harmful, my point is not to disagree with you but help you understand that any of these artificial flavors were never designed with the intent of inhaling.They make this stuff called glue and some people / kids eat the stuff, is it made to eat ? If you truly wanted to take out the idea of vaping a toxin then why not just go flavorless or at the very least cut your flavor % in half.

You are of course correct regarding the original intended usage of flavourings. Where you argument falls down is that these companies are fully aware that when they sell to [insert e-liquid company name here] their flavourings are not being consumed as a foodstuff. The flavour manufacturer is absolved of responsibility imo, firstly because in this scenario they are not selling direct to the public, and secondly because they cannot control if the purchaser uses their product for a purpose other than that for which it was intended.

The problem is I've never picked up a bottle of e-liquid and seen a disclaimer on the bottle, something like, "Chemical components in this product have not been designed for human inhalation" or "May not be safe for human inhalation." or even "Not tested for human inhalation, use at own risk."
The perception cultivated by the e-liquid companies is that it's perfectly safe to use, when as mentioned beforehand, they know components of their product is being used, by themselves, for purposes other than that it was designed to be used for.

As soon as you do that it becomes your responsibility, imo, to ensure your new use for that product doesn't create a safety issue. Crazy analogy: I buy a (clothes) washing machine from Hotpoint, respray it, rebrand it and sell it as a new design of dishwasher. When all the first purchaser's bone china turns to dust who's fault is it?
Not Hotpoint, they designed the machine to wash clothes. Not the consumer, it was purchased in good faith, it's sold and advertised as a dishwasher, how were they to know it would tumble around for an hour then spin their tableware at 1400 rpm?

In short I believe that if you sell and market a product it is your responsibility to ensure it is "Fit for Purpose." As vapers this isn't the reality in relation to e-liquids.

 

[lexalove]

What are they supposed to test for? As of right now there is nothing that
can be proven harmful. Not one vaper can be said to have been harmed
by vaping.(allergic reactions not included)

Regards
Mike

Incorrect. I take it you've never heard of the Greek scientist Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos? He is conducting varies studies into e-cigarette usage. The results of his testing so far a freely available, I would advise you to look and read. Then it will become clearer what the e-liquid industry should be testing for and removing from their products.

 

[lexalove]

Just out of curiosity, what is your common sense threshold for "harmful substances?"

There are various substances in vaping that CAN be harmful, it's a matter of dosage and degree though. There's actually more evidence of our nicotine being "harmful" in our dosages than there is of any of our flavorings.

I'm an engineer, not a scientist, but I do know there are exposure limits set in law or through specific industry regulation for most chemicals & substances in common use.

People such as the previously mentioned Dr. Farsalinos, who are doing e-cigarette specific research will help formulate recommended exposure levels specific to vaping.

 

[skoony]

Incorrect. I take it you've never heard of the Greek scientist Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos? He is conducting varies studies into e-cigarette usage. The results of his testing so far a freely available, I would advise you to look and read. Then it will become clearer what the e-liquid industry should be testing for and removing from their products.

I am familiar with Dr. Farsalionos work. He tested e-juice and reported what he found.
Some of the liquids contained up to 2x times the NIOSH recommended exposure rate.
However the good Dr. never tested for toxic effects of diketones on human lung
tissue while suspended and dispersed in PG and or VG. Dr. Farsalinos opinions
about diketones rely on other studies on toxicity of pure diketones dispersed
in ambient air. On the one hand he says there are diketones in the juice and
they should be avoided. On the other hand he has said concerning the particle sizes
of vapor v smoke and the penetration into the lungs were not comparable as
vapor was in liquid form not,dry particulate matter as in smoke.
There are at least two studies using healthy human lung tissue comparing
the effects of vapor v smoke. Both studies confirmed there was no long
term or permanent damage to the cells from vapor but,significant harm from the smoke.
I do not know if the juice they used contained diketones. The results are
encouraging as they pertain to the relative safety of vaping in general and,
even more so when compared to smoking. I believe one has to look at all
the current data as a whole not, one particular possible concern that as
of yet has not shown itself to be a problem. Raw pure diacetyl and titanium
dioxide can damage lungs in high concentrations. Then again any fine dry
particulate matter in general can damage lungs.
In the end its our own personal choices on how we view the current information
such as it is. I personally look at the big picture. What i see tells me the chances
are all on our side.

Regards
Mike

 

[Jode]

You are of course correct regarding the original intended usage of flavourings. Where you argument falls down is that these companies are fully aware that when they sell to [insert e-liquid company name here] their flavourings are not being consumed as a foodstuff. The flavour manufacturer is absolved of responsibility imo, firstly because in this scenario they are not selling direct to the public, and secondly because they cannot control if the purchaser uses their product for a purpose other than that for which it was intended.

The problem is I've never picked up a bottle of e-liquid and seen a disclaimer on the bottle, something like, "Chemical components in this product have not been designed for human inhalation" or "May not be safe for human inhalation." or even "Not tested for human inhalation, use at own risk."
The perception cultivated by the e-liquid companies is that it's perfectly safe to use, when as mentioned beforehand, they know components of their product is being used, by themselves, for purposes other than that it was designed to be used for.

As soon as you do that it becomes your responsibility, imo, to ensure your new use for that product doesn't create a safety issue. Crazy analogy: I buy a (clothes) washing machine from Hotpoint, respray it, rebrand it and sell it as a new design of dishwasher. When all the first purchaser's bone china turns to dust who's fault is it?
Not Hotpoint, they designed the machine to wash clothes. Not the consumer, it was purchased in good faith, it's sold and advertised as a dishwasher, how were they to know it would tumble around for an hour then spin their tableware at 1400 rpm?

In short I believe that if you sell and market a product it is your responsibility to ensure it is "Fit for Purpose." As vapers this isn't the reality in relation to e-liquids.

I firmly disagree with you. Buyer beware!!! If I am looking to purchase any product it is my responsibility to do my research especially if it is a product I will be eating, drinking or inhaling. People buy products every day only to find they are not as represented and commonly end up sucking it up so your re-branded dishwasher from a washer machine scenario is as you stated.....crazy. Most people that vape are well aware that the flavorings have not been approved for inhalation and that we are still learning about effects they may have long term. Most of us accept that we are doing something that is still in experimental stages so it is most definitely up to each individual to decide what their risk threshold is and test themselves if their concern is high enough and vendor has not done testing or simply find one that does test to their satisfaction. If you really want to compare e-liquid to another product at least compare it to something ingested. Let's compare it to soda. A product that is readily sold to people of all ages. Soda is far from safe and causes many (possibly fatal) long term maladies yet their labels are do not need to list all possible problems the product could cause in an individual. It is up to the individual consumers to decide if the risk is worth the enjoyment for them. I drank soda (Pepsi) for many years with my head in the sand until I started to have medical problems directly related to it. I did not sue Pepsi because it was always my choice to consume it. Caffeine can be highly addictive for some, so just saying no was no easy feat but I decided my risk threshold became greater then my enjoyment so I worked hard to get over my addiction to soda and have not had one in over two years. I talk about this because although I have a strong desire to avoid it for myself I know it is a product that is enjoyed by many (despite it's chemical makeup) so I leave it up to them to decide for themselves as I am not my brothers keeper. E-liquid is presently an age restricted product so the consumers are adults capable of determining the risks they are willing to take for their enjoyment. Nobody is forcing anybody to vape anything.

Incorrect. I take it you've never heard of the Greek scientist Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos? He is conducting varies studies into e-cigarette usage. The results of his testing so far a freely available, I would advise you to look and read. Then it will become clearer what the e-liquid industry should be testing for and removing from their products.

I'm an engineer, not a scientist, but I do know there are exposure limits set in law or through specific industry regulation for most chemicals & substances in common use.

People such as the previously mentioned Dr. Farsalinos, who are doing e-cigarette specific research will help formulate recommended exposure levels specific to vaping.

I can assure you that the two individuals you replied to are well aware of all that Dr F. has said. How they feel about his studies is up to them to decide. I see Mike has already replied as I was typing this out. While I am very glad that Dr F. is doing these studies, even he would agree that there is still much to learn about these chemicals and what if anything may be a good replacement for them to create the desired effect with less possible consequences, thus leading many of us to still feel that these concerns are overblown and that there is not enough known to know what to test for. I would like to suggest you reread these studies and open your eyes to what he is really saying. I see his work as raising awareness to do more studies to find out if there is a "reasonably safe" level of DA, AP or if it could possibly be avoided all together by replacing it with something else, but the jury is still out on it all. Bottom line is that we still do not know all there is to know but we are getting closer everyday. In the mean time we all need to take responsibility for ourselves. Decide what is important to you and be prepared to do your own research/testing if it means that much to you and let others decide for themselves as well. As for referring to some people as "Hard of Thinking"....is that supposed to be like "Hard of Hearing"? Government is not going to watch out for anybody and regulations will do nothing to protect the "Hard of Thinking".

 

[sparkky1]

You are of course correct regarding the original intended usage of flavourings. Where you argument falls down is that these companies are fully aware that when they sell to [insert e-liquid company name here] their flavourings are not being consumed as a foodstuff. The flavour manufacturer is absolved of responsibility imo, firstly because in this scenario they are not selling direct to the public, and secondly because they cannot control if the purchaser uses their product for a purpose other than that for which it was intended.

The problem is I've never picked up a bottle of e-liquid and seen a disclaimer on the bottle, something like, "Chemical components in this product have not been designed for human inhalation" or "May not be safe for human inhalation." or even "Not tested for human inhalation, use at own risk."
The perception cultivated by the e-liquid companies is that it's perfectly safe to use, when as mentioned beforehand, they know components of their product is being used, by themselves, for purposes other than that it was designed to be used for.

As soon as you do that it becomes your responsibility, imo, to ensure your new use for that product doesn't create a safety issue. Crazy analogy: I buy a (clothes) washing machine from Hotpoint, respray it, rebrand it and sell it as a new design of dishwasher. When all the first purchaser's bone china turns to dust who's fault is it?
Not Hotpoint, they designed the machine to wash clothes. Not the consumer, it was purchased in good faith, it's sold and advertised as a dishwasher, how were they to know it would tumble around for an hour then spin their tableware at 1400 rpm?

In short I believe that if you sell and market a product it is your responsibility to ensure it is "Fit for Purpose." As vapers this isn't the reality in relation to e-liquids.

So what your saying is that juice makers should label there juice bottles "this bottle contains diacetyl linked to one study to possibly cause lung disease BO"
And for your DAP free label : this bottle contains artificial / natural flavorings not linked to any study to be safe for inhalation.
The FDA has been well aware of the diacetyl concern since 2007 and now 2015 has chosen to regulate it as ?

 

[lexalove]

I firmly disagree with you. Buyer beware!!! If I am looking to purchase any product it is my responsibility to do my research especially if it is a product I will be eating, drinking or inhaling. People buy products every day only to find they are not as represented and commonly end up sucking it up so your re-branded dishwasher from a washer machine scenario is as you stated.....crazy. Most people that vape are well aware that the flavorings have not been approved for inhalation and that we are still learning about effects they may have long term. Most of us accept that we are doing something that is still in experimental stages so it is most definitely up to each individual to decide what their risk threshold is and test themselves if their concern is high enough and vendor has not done testing or simply find one that does test to their satisfaction. If you really want to compare e-liquid to another product at least compare it to something ingested. Let's compare it to soda. A product that is readily sold to people of all ages. Soda is far from safe and causes many (possibly fatal) long term maladies yet their labels are do not need to list all possible problems the product could cause in an individual. It is up to the individual consumers to decide if the risk is worth the enjoyment for them. I drank soda (Pepsi) for many years with my head in the sand until I started to have medical problems directly related to it. I did not sue Pepsi because it was always my choice to consume it. Caffeine can be highly addictive for some, so just saying no was no easy feat but I decided my risk threshold became greater then my enjoyment so I worked hard to get over my addiction to soda and have not had one in over two years. I talk about this because although I have a strong desire to avoid it for myself I know it is a product that is enjoyed by many (despite it's chemical makeup) so I leave it up to them to decide for themselves as I am not my brothers keeper. E-liquid is presently an age restricted product so the consumers are adults capable of determining the risks they are willing to take for their enjoyment. Nobody is forcing anybody to vape anything.






I can assure you that the two individuals you replied to are well aware of all that Dr F. has said. How they feel about his studies is up to them to decide. I see Mike has already replied as I was typing this out. While I am very glad that Dr F. is doing these studies, even he would agree that there is still much to learn about these chemicals and what if anything may be a good replacement for them to create the desired effect with less possible consequences, thus leading many of us to still feel that these concerns are overblown and that there is not enough known to know what to test for. I would like to suggest you reread these studies and open your eyes to what he is really saying. I see his work as raising awareness to do more studies to find out if there is a "reasonably safe" level of DA, AP or if it could possibly be avoided all together by replacing it with something else, but the jury is still out on it all. Bottom line is that we still do not know all there is to know but we are getting closer everyday. In the mean time we all need to take responsibility for ourselves. Decide what is important to you and be prepared to do your own research/testing if it means that much to you and let others decide for themselves as well. As for referring to some people as "Hard of Thinking"....is that supposed to be like "Hard of Hearing"? Government is not going to watch out for anybody and regulations will do nothing to protect the "Hard of Thinking".

To your first point stating that consumers should just, "suck it up", that's why we in the UK have 'Trading Standards' so consumers purchasing something that turns out to be 'unfit for purpose' has some recourse.

You missed my initial point, I know we as vapers decide to use a product that has not been fully tested and that is every vapers personal choice. That does not preclude anyone from trying to find out what is in the product they are consuming or asking for clarification of its contents so they can make a more informed choice.

As for your soda analogy, I'll trump you with a more accurate one; cigarettes and the tobacco industry. Do you think PM and the others chose to have health warning, pictures of diseased lungs and cadavers on their packaging? Of course not, government regulation forced them to do that. So your statement that, "Government is not going to watch out for anybody and regulations will do nothing to protect the "Hard of Thinking", is clearly incorrect. And this is what will happen in the vaping industry, if not worse, if we fail to self-regulate and give governments an excuse to do so on our behalf.

I have read every study and probably seen or listened to every interview Dr. Farsalinos has done on the subject. It comes down to two people reading the bible, for example, and each one interpreting the scripture differently. Else there would only be one denomination of Christianity, right? We all hold differing views and I'm not attempting to force my views on you or anyone else. I'm stating my opinion, hopefully backed up with some sound arguments and facts where applicable, and encouraging debate.

EDIT: I noted the list of petitions at the bottom of your signature (I assume these petitions are in defense of vaping - I'm a Briton so not familiar with them)? But why are we having to fight regulation? Just think if the industry did all the necessary research and regulated itself in a transparent manner would governments be so eager to impose regulation? Yes, we all know their main goal is to raise revenue from the sale of e-cigarette products but what are they using as an excuse for the necessity for regulation in the majority of cases?

 

[lexalove]

So what your saying is that juice makers should label there juice bottles "this bottle contains diacetyl linked to one study to possibly cause lung disease BO"
And for your DAP free label : this bottle contains artificial / natural flavorings not linked to any study to be safe for inhalation.
The FDA has been well aware of the diacetyl concern since 2007 and now 2015 has chosen to regulate it as ?

I don't understand your last question, if it is in fact a question?

Governments world-wide are looking to regulate the e-cigarette industry. The more we fail to self-regulate the more excuse we give those in power to impose more draconian measures. I really don't understand why people seem unaware, or refuse to accept, this simple fact. Those same people are the ones who'll be most outraged when e-liquid is only able to be legally sold through licensed oulets, 10ml costs £20 and vaping anywhere but in the privacy of your own home is banned.

 

[Lessifer]

I don't understand your last question, if it is in fact a question?

Governments world-wide are looking to regulate the e-cigarette industry. The more we fail to self-regulate the more excuse we give those in power to impose more draconian measures. I really don't understand why people seem unaware, or refuse to accept, this simple fact. Those same people are the ones who'll be most outraged when e-liquid is only able to be legally sold through licensed oulets, 10ml costs £20 and vaping anywhere but in the privacy of your own home is banned.

You choose to preempt government regulation by self imposing restrictions based on speculation and assumption, which is also what most governments are basing their actual regulations on. Some of us would like actual knowledge and fact to be the basis of any policies related to e-cigarettes.

I have never said that D/AP are not harmful, in the context of vaping. I believe the mechanisms between vaping and working in an industrial situation where you are exposed to raw chemicals are different enough to warrant actual study, and not just assumption of equivalence.

 

[sparkky1]

I don't understand your last question, if it is in fact a question?

Governments world-wide are looking to regulate the e-cigarette industry. The more we fail to self-regulate the more excuse we give those in power to impose more draconian measures. I really don't understand why people seem unaware, or refuse to accept, this simple fact. Those same people are the ones who'll be most outraged when e-liquid is only able to be legally sold through licensed, oulets 10ml costs £20 and vaping anywhere but in the privacy of your own home is banned.

Again I'm not in disagreement with you, I for one do care what I put in my lungs.What I am saying is this is a very slow process coming from the federal side but I do know they are in the process of it not only for ejuice. Tobacco Control Act
I do refer to 2007 Wayne Watson as the only person to supposedly contract the disease outside the factory workers, isn't that just a little strange ? Everyone else since was mis diagnosed ?

 

[lexalove]

You choose to preempt government regulation by self imposing restrictions based on speculation and assumption, which is also what most governments are basing their actual regulations on. Some of us would like actual knowledge and fact to be the basis of any policies related to e-cigarettes.

I have never said that D/AP are not harmful, in the context of vaping. I believe the mechanisms between vaping and working in an industrial situation where you are exposed to raw chemicals are different enough to warrant actual study, and not just assumption of equivalence.

So in fact you agree with me.
But how are we going to get the necessary research done to obtain the knowledge and determine the facts if we are dissuaded from asking the pertinent questions?

Asking a company supplying e-liquid exactly what levels of a particular chemical or compound is in their product would seem to me a pertinent question. If the e-liquid industry was willing to fund scientific research to establish these facts that would be even better. But at the moment it seems profit is the number one overriding concern of many liquid manufacturers who won't fund research, won't test their product and on the occasions they do test, fail to make those results public.

 

[lexalove]

Again I'm not in disagreement with you, I for one do care what I put in my lungs.What I am saying is this is a very slow process coming from the federal side but I do know they are in the process of it not only for ejuice. Tobacco Control Act
I do refer to 2007 Wayne Watson as the only person to supposedly contract the disease outside the factory workers, isn't that just a little strange ? Everyone else since was mis diagnosed ?

Sparkky1, I'm not familiar with the case you mention so I can't comment. I guess the disease you're referring to is the so-called ''popcorn lung?''

What I will say is that we shouldn't wait until people start suffering chronic illness before we act. We need to ask questions, put pressure on manufacturers to test and fund research to determine the facts so we can put our house in order before the government accuse us of negligence and enforce draconian regulation.

 

[Lessifer]

So in fact you agree with me.
But how are we going to get the necessary research done to obtain the knowledge and determine the facts if we are dissuaded from asking the pertinent questions?

Asking a company supplying e-liquid exactly what levels of a particular chemical or compound is in their product would seem to me a pertinent question. If the e-liquid industry was willing to fund scientific research to establish these facts that would be even better. But at the moment it seems profit is the number one overriding concern of many liquid manufacturers who won't fund research, won't test their product and on the occasions they do test, fail to make those results public.

We are somewhat in agreement. I would love to know if diketones pose a risk in our application. Assuming that they do and calling for the industry to "self ban" them from e-liquids won't lead to that knowledge. The issue with this thread, as I've stated before but it's a long thread so I won't fault you for not reading it all, is not in that the questions were asked. The fault in this thread is the way in which it was presented to the internet(public). The initial post was basically an accusation of lying and corruption, before the company in question even had a chance to respond.

 

[lexalove]

We are somewhat in agreement. I would love to know if diketones pose a risk in our application. Assuming that they do and calling for the industry to "self ban" them from e-liquids won't lead to that knowledge. The issue with this thread, as I've stated before but it's a long thread so I won't fault you for not reading it all, is not in that the questions were asked. The fault in this thread is the way in which it was presented to the internet(public). The initial post was basically an accusation of lying and corruption, before the company in question even had a chance to respond.

Just to be clear I wasn't calling for any ingredient to be banned based on an assumption. I said firstly that manufacturers should be open and transparent about the content of their product then consumers can make an informed choice. And secondly, they should be funding research and doing testing so we can stop making assumptions and have a factual discussion.

Personally I didn't think there was much wrong with the OP and I didn't think he was inferring the company was 'lying' only that he felt they didn't respond with documented evidence of their claims and their response was very vague.

 

[skoony]

To your first point stating that consumers should just, "suck it up", that's why we in the UK have 'Trading Standards' so consumers purchasing something that turns out to be 'unfit for purpose' has some recourse.

You missed my initial point, I know we as vapers decide to use a product that has not been fully tested and that is every vapers personal choice. That does not preclude anyone from trying to find out what is in the product they are consuming or asking for clarification of its contents so they can make a more informed choice.

As for your soda analogy, I'll trump you with a more accurate one; cigarettes and the tobacco industry. Do you think PM and the others chose to have health warning, pictures of diseased lungs and cadavers on their packaging? Of course not, government regulation forced them to do that. So your statement that, "Government is not going to watch out for anybody and regulations will do nothing to protect the "Hard of Thinking", is clearly incorrect. And this is what will happen in the vaping industry, if not worse, if we fail to self-regulate and give governments an excuse to do so on our behalf.

I have read every study and probably seen or listened to every interview Dr. Farsalinos has done on the subject. It comes down to two people reading the bible, for example, and each one interpreting the scripture differently. Else there would only be one denomination of Christianity, right? We all hold differing views and I'm not attempting to force my views on you or anyone else. I'm stating my opinion, hopefully backed up with some sound arguments and facts where applicable, and encouraging debate.

EDIT: I noted the list of petitions at the bottom of your signature (I assume these petitions are in defense of vaping - I'm a Briton so not familiar with them)? But why are we having to fight regulation? Just think if the industry did all the necessary research and regulated itself in a transparent manner would governments be so eager to impose regulation? Yes, we all know their main goal is to raise revenue from the sale of e-cigarette products but what are they using as an excuse for the necessity for regulation in the majority of cases?

[MODERATED] Have you actually read the studies? I have.
It seems to me you are living in some sort of fantasy land.
All of your statements have been disproved years ago.
[MODERATED]


Regards
Mike