So FDA puts out a study that is misleading, New Zealand has a study out but its not very in depth. If we all pooled our resources for a private study into analyzing the ecig and its chemicals and everything what would it cost? Is the ECA gathering funding for a private non bias testing? I think we all want to know the truth whether it is good or bad. Judging by the many who are in this forum and posting personal experiences, and by my own thought process and sense, I would say they are a hell of a lot better than analogs. So yes how much does it cost to test these things fully? And what companies would and could do the testing needed?
What would be the cost of testing ecig?
- Thread starter Blooper
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The testing wouldn't be outrageous if you didn't have to purchase miles and miles of red tape
Blooper -
What needs to be done is a group like Right To Vape - Index gets more consumer participation and gets the testing done. That way, there would be no "this study doesn't count because a supplier/manufacturer paid for it". (Which is ridiculous considering that 99% of pharmaceutical testing is done by the company wanting approval)... But none-the-less... if a consumer group were to fund and release a study, that would have some serious validity to it.
If you go to the link provided and look around, they have discussions started to which you could definitely help along with.
As far as testing is concerned, pricing depends on what you want.
I would take all of the studies that have been produced thus far, the FDA study and the Exponent study of the FDA study and that would give you a pretty good idea of what you need. Most importantly would be the vapor as the vapor is what is actually ingested by the user. Testing for carcinogens in the liquid is ridiculous because we aren't drinking the liquid, we are inhaling it's vapor.
Now, a test on the actual bottles of liquid would also be interesting to determine if a bottle of liquid would in fact kill someone when they drank. Also, how many bottles would it take to kill someone based on weight at 40lbs (average 5 year old) 80lbs (average 12 year old) 110lbs and so on... This, IMHO, is a serious question that needs to be answered.
The other cost factor is the facility itself that would be doing the testing. Their "resume" is extremely important considering that any study can be totally discredited for any reason anyone sees fit. For your study results to be tossed out because you used a sub-par research facility would be painful. Expense goes up with the quality of the lab. Another thing to look for in the lab is what kind of relationship does the lab have with the FDA? Do they do testing frequently for or with the FDA and another question would be how often does their testing get questioned by the FDA?
Exponent - Quite interesting reading here.
What needs to be done is a group like Right To Vape - Index gets more consumer participation and gets the testing done. That way, there would be no "this study doesn't count because a supplier/manufacturer paid for it". (Which is ridiculous considering that 99% of pharmaceutical testing is done by the company wanting approval)... But none-the-less... if a consumer group were to fund and release a study, that would have some serious validity to it.
If you go to the link provided and look around, they have discussions started to which you could definitely help along with.
As far as testing is concerned, pricing depends on what you want.
I would take all of the studies that have been produced thus far, the FDA study and the Exponent study of the FDA study and that would give you a pretty good idea of what you need. Most importantly would be the vapor as the vapor is what is actually ingested by the user. Testing for carcinogens in the liquid is ridiculous because we aren't drinking the liquid, we are inhaling it's vapor.
Now, a test on the actual bottles of liquid would also be interesting to determine if a bottle of liquid would in fact kill someone when they drank. Also, how many bottles would it take to kill someone based on weight at 40lbs (average 5 year old) 80lbs (average 12 year old) 110lbs and so on... This, IMHO, is a serious question that needs to be answered.
The other cost factor is the facility itself that would be doing the testing. Their "resume" is extremely important considering that any study can be totally discredited for any reason anyone sees fit. For your study results to be tossed out because you used a sub-par research facility would be painful. Expense goes up with the quality of the lab. Another thing to look for in the lab is what kind of relationship does the lab have with the FDA? Do they do testing frequently for or with the FDA and another question would be how often does their testing get questioned by the FDA?
Exponent - Quite interesting reading here.
Yes, and if I'm not mistaken, if the study is to be used for a New Drug Application seeking approval, it must be conducted by a "sanctioned and approved" facility by the FDA. They are the ones that charge the big bucks. I believe more information is available on the FDAs site.
Who cares? FDA submission should be completely voluntary for a company. The most the FDA can do is force suppliers to put a label on their products that the smoking cessation claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. Extenze and 5hour energy seem to do it.
However I see no reason to label anything for an e-cig. Word of mouth and "the" media have provided me with all the information to make a decision for MYSELF.
However I see no reason to label anything for an e-cig. Word of mouth and "the" media have provided me with all the information to make a decision for MYSELF.
Extenze and 5hour and other companies get around the issue by being a supplement which uses ingredients found naturally or in our bodies. That wouldn't work with nicotine since it is already considered a drug by the FDA. Just my opinion as i use alot of supplements and sort of know how they work and i am not saying a supplement is an less potent than some drugs cause they can be, trust me, just the FDA doesn't regulate that market.
The testing that is needed for the e-cigarette is not its effectiveness as an NRT or CSP but for manufacturing consistency. The most worrisome result from the FDA test was their discovery that not all cartridges are made alike so their are no assurances that "Low" "Med" and "High" levels of nicotine are labels that actually mean something, and some assurance that cartridges without nicotine really don't have nicotine, and as a consumer I'd like to know that all the flavors and additives are non-toxic and I want to know that impurities are kept below a reasonable threshold.
Agreed 100%. However I would not use the word "need". That implies that without it the product should be pulled off the market. The FDA's job as I understand it should be to make sure that I do not die by using the products it endorses. It should have no say as to what I CHOOSE to consume.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
