FDA will WTA survive the FDA?

[FireDragon1138]

Do you think WTA has any chance, especially as AEMSA doesn't support the presence of whole tobacco alkaloids in e-liquid? (they seem to view it as inherently impure due to the extraction process, and not needed). Some think purity standards are needed, but that might completely shut out e-liquids that contain minor tobacco alkaloids.

I'm thinking about writing to CASAA about my concerns. I could see quitting vaping if WTA were not available- WTA has been the one thing that's let me feel vaping could work. In fact, expansion of WTA in e-liquids is needed for vaping to really have a chance at rivalling traditional cigarette usage. This forum is full of success stories from e-cigs but we hear less negative stories here: I believe there may be lots of people that try e-cigs and either go back to smoking or only use e-cigs as "dual use", smoking when they can, vaping when they cannot. It's important the e-cig industry is not locked into a liquid or device that only works for some people.

 

[Rossum]

Think about it this way: If the FDA gets all medieval on us, WTA is probably easier to make than "pure" nicotine.

 

[Katya]

Think about it this way: If the FDA gets all medieval on us, WTA is probably easier to make than "pure" nicotine.

No it is not. It's a very complicated process.

 

[Rossum]

No it is not. It's a very complicated process.

I didn't say it was easy. Are you saying that extracting "pure" nicotine is easier than extracting whatever mix of alkaloids is in the tobacco to begin with? If so, please elaborate.

 

[Katya]

I'm not a chemist, so I can only refer you to our resident chemist Dvap, who spent years trying to perfect the process of creating vapeable, safe and effective WTA eliquids. But I've been following his travails for over four years--with awe and fascination. I'm a beneficiary of his knowledge and hard work, as I was one of those people for whom nicotine alone just wasn't enough. I suggest you visit his blog and then read some threads (in Aroma's subforum, for example) on the subject. I use Aroma's WTA eliquids and I feel safe using them--and they work for me.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/blogs/dvap/4524-whole-tobacco-alkaloids-bit-history.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/blogs/dvap/4798-wta-what-what-isnt.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/blogs/dvap/5541-nets-versus-wta.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...id-wta-faq-info-aroma-ejuice.html#post3958461

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...n/230570-wta-e-liquid-issues.html#post4322166

 

[aikanae1]

I didn't say it was easy. Are you saying that extracting "pure" nicotine is easier than extracting whatever mix of alkaloids is in the tobacco to begin with? If so, please elaborate.

Yes. WTA has additional extraction processes. I think what you might be thinking of is a tobacco net and there are ways to process a crude form of a tobacco net at home. Nicotine strength and purity might be questionable. But that's not WTA. There's a number of threads on the difference.

WTA is a very unique product and from what I can tell, the FDA is not prepared to handle something like that. We shall see.

 

[duroSIG556R]

I think we have more things to worry about at the moment then WTA. Like the fact that the industry could potentially shut down in 2 years leaving only cig-a-like options from big tobacco.

 

[snork]

If there is any hope in the survivability of vaping as we know it I'm confident Jerry at Aroma has the expertise to comply, politically and technically. Financially, only he could make that call.
Pure nicotine and WTA should be the same things in their eyes, tobacco products. Should be.

 

[snork]

I think we have more things to worry about at the moment then WTA. Like the fact that the industry could potentially shut down in 2 years leaving only cig-a-like options from big tobacco.

Same thing.

 

[FireDragon1138]

I think we have more things to worry about at the moment then WTA. Like the fact that the industry could potentially shut down in 2 years leaving only cig-a-like options from big tobacco.

Too many folks on ECF only focus on gadgety hardware and are comfortable with a very limited choice in e-liquid bases.

 

[Rossum]

I'm not a chemist, so I can only refer you to our resident chemist Dvap, who spent years trying to perfect the process of creating vapeable, safe and effective WTA eliquids.

Yes, I'm familiar with much of what Dvap and others have written on the subject, 'cause I also use some WTA. I know it's a complicated process. But put it in perspective: How much more or less complicated would it be to extract purified nicotine?

Nobody even tries to extract pure nicotine themselves because it's done commercially on an industrial scale, which makes pure nicotine readily available at low cost. We know that nicotine itself is an alkaloid too, just like the other, minor alkaloids in WTA, which are presumably considered impurities when nicotine is extracted on an industrial scale. Thus my sense is that WTA is what you get when you extract alkaloids from tobacco and pure nicotine is obtained by further processing WTA to remove the "impurities".

 

[FireDragon1138]

I agree, making black-market WTA would be easier than purifying nicotine. But the consistency would be a big issue. Another thing to consider is the cost of tobacco. If the Fed has its way, pipe tobacco will be taxed even more, reducing the cost-effectiveness of getting alkaloids from tobacco. Aroma and WholeCig can obtain tobacco and not have to pay user duties.

 

[olderthandirt]

...Thus my sense is that WTA is what you get when you extract alkaloids from tobacco and pure nicotine is obtained by further processing WTA to remove the "impurities".

Not a brain nor do I portray one on the web.

What I've gotten from following WTA, from it's creation mind you to it's current iteration, is that the cocktail of alkaloids we lovingly call WTA would be much more difficult than pure nicotine.

Consider
Extraction of nicotine only is a process aiming for a single specific element.
Extraction for WTA is a process aiming for multiple specific elements. I'd think the later would be the more difficult of the two.

Interesting speculation though. Sure glad I have a freezer (-:

 

[snork]

It's no more nor less complicated. You target what you want, and get it.

 

[Rossum]

Think of tobacco as crude oil. Is it easier to extract some blend of hydrocarbons, or is it easier to extract one specific hydrocarbon and nothing else, not even any very similar molecules?

Think of tobacco as sea water. It is it easier to extract the natural blend of salts, or is it easier to extract pure sodium chloride?

I'm not a chemist either, and I realize that these are imperfect analogies, but in general, it's easier to extract a blend of similar substances that are naturally present in your starting material than it is to extract a pure substance while rejecting similar ones.

 

[olderthandirt]

he-he
I follow yer reasoning Rossum and gotta say that aside from speculations such as ours on a Saturday morn, the survival for WTA beyond the FDA really boils down to one thing.
That being I am glad I have a freezer!

 

[FireDragon1138]

That makes sense as the minor alkaloids in tobacco are all chemically related to nicotine.

I think the issues for WTA are extracting the alkaloids without having too much unwanted gunk leftover that affects the flavor and vaping characteristics. Being specific for a particular alkaloid is probably not as important.

Some varieties of tobacco do not have as many minor alkaloids as others, something to keep in mind. Leaf selection would be important.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

If I'm reading the OP correctly, the Q is about regulations, not org. chemistry (?). Although the chemistry part was quite fascinating to me, since I'm still a noob

The short answer to the Q posed in the thread subject is: "no [WTAs will not survive because they are to be regulated]." Surprise, surprise.

The key language is at the bottom of p.110 and the top of p.111 (geez, I wish they had page numbers on a table of contents. Maybe I'll create one, it's very irritating that they don't):

"Option 1 [the one that includes fancy cigars] ... would state that cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and all other tobacco products, as defined in section 201(rr) of the FD&C act except the accessories of such other tobacco products ['accessories' refers to Provari tee shirts and the like] are subject to the FD&C act and its implementing regulations. [bold added]"

In a nutshell they are taking their regulatory authority almost as far as the statute permits, except for those EGO carrying cases and Provari tee shirts ("accessories'). Plus or minus the fancy cigars, of course - depending on whether they go for option 1 or option 2.

Anything derived from tobacco which is intended or anticipated to be recreationally ingested by consumers as well as components or parts of such products is therefore included.

 

[Rossum]

I am glad I have a freezer!

Indeed. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

 

[tombaker]

Anything derived from tobacco which is intended or anticipated to be recreationally ingested by consumers as well as components or parts of such products is therefore included.

If a product is used for something that is not a nicotine product,
YOU think that because it COULD be used for a nicotine product,
that the Product is then controlled entirely
by the entity that has dominion over Nicotine Products only.

Sottera Court says you are wrong.
How about any existing similar example of this theory of yours???????