This is a take-out from a thread in Media News where JF Etter's latest study is discussed. It started to go OT with a discussion of WTAs etc, so that is being continued here.
Tetsab said:
I think it is inevitable that WTA inclusion in e-liquids becomes more prevalent. There are certain pros and cons to this, so it will certainly generate a great deal of debate.
The pros:
- Will allow an e-cigarette to better replicate tobacco smoking, as more of the ingredients are included.
- Will allow e-cigarettes to totally replace dual-use of Snus and e-cigarettes. As a full tobacco substitute, the e-cig with a WTA-inclusive refill will do the job of an e-cig with a standard refill + Snus.
- The ~10% of ex-smokers who cannot do without WTAs will have a 100% e-cig route to switching instead of needing Snus as well.
- An e-liquid with a full tobacco alkaloid profile is more likely to provide better life-enhancing functionality for those with a proven deficiency after cessation of tobacco smoking than one with nicotine alone.
The cons:
- Current WTA e-liquid manufacturing quality controls do not appear to allow for full analysis and evaluation of the entire ingredient list.
- With current manufacturing standards it is impossible to state that WTA inclusion will not also bring across unwanted carcinogens.
- There is a possibility, and perhaps a probability, that WTA inclusion equals greater potential for dependence for some (but not all) users.
I speak as an extended time period user of WTA liquids who used them for 6 months during the switching process, and then quit them with no problem. So, for me at least, they were necessary in order to do the job properly, and then easy to remove from the consumption profile.
I don't see a problem with extended or even permanent use of WTAs - as long as strict manufacturing quality controls are in place. As a minimum this would include a full GC-MS analysis of the finished retail product being published regularly. Until that time I would understand if people see WTAs as an alternative with more risk than pure pharma-grade nicotine-only liquids. However, as compared with smoking, the risk is most likely so far down the scale as to be insignificant.
My personal opinion - and I must emphasise that it is purely personal - is that vaping an unflavoured nic base, where the user tests various products to ensure that the least problematic base material format is used, has a risk of about 10,000 times less than smoking. Using non-pharma grades of carrier (PG, VG), adding flavourings, and adding anything else such as WTA (only because they might bring along with them some unwanted materials) has to increase the risk.
By choosing your price point and your added inclusions, you determine your own risk level. I think that is entirely appropriate, since any way of converting away from tobacco cigarettes is going to reduce your risk by several orders of magnitude, and any way you can manage that has to be good - whatever the cheap and nasty cocktail you choose to vape.
As you can see I am entirely in favour of people buying the highest quality refills they can, which would include those that start out being made from the most expensive ingredients and finished in the best laboratory manufacturing facilities, and then having the finished retail product extensively tested and the results published. But that's an individual's choice entirely. You pays your money and takes your choice.
I feel it is a ridiculous situation for the government to be involved in regulating and testing materials that, however bad they are, cannot possibly be any less than 100 times safer than smoking. But it is fair to say that quality controls are not where they should be, as yet. It is way past the time when the trade needed to do something about this.
Tetsab said:
I think it is inevitable that WTA inclusion in e-liquids becomes more prevalent. There are certain pros and cons to this, so it will certainly generate a great deal of debate.
The pros:
- Will allow an e-cigarette to better replicate tobacco smoking, as more of the ingredients are included.
- Will allow e-cigarettes to totally replace dual-use of Snus and e-cigarettes. As a full tobacco substitute, the e-cig with a WTA-inclusive refill will do the job of an e-cig with a standard refill + Snus.
- The ~10% of ex-smokers who cannot do without WTAs will have a 100% e-cig route to switching instead of needing Snus as well.
- An e-liquid with a full tobacco alkaloid profile is more likely to provide better life-enhancing functionality for those with a proven deficiency after cessation of tobacco smoking than one with nicotine alone.
The cons:
- Current WTA e-liquid manufacturing quality controls do not appear to allow for full analysis and evaluation of the entire ingredient list.
- With current manufacturing standards it is impossible to state that WTA inclusion will not also bring across unwanted carcinogens.
- There is a possibility, and perhaps a probability, that WTA inclusion equals greater potential for dependence for some (but not all) users.
I speak as an extended time period user of WTA liquids who used them for 6 months during the switching process, and then quit them with no problem. So, for me at least, they were necessary in order to do the job properly, and then easy to remove from the consumption profile.
I don't see a problem with extended or even permanent use of WTAs - as long as strict manufacturing quality controls are in place. As a minimum this would include a full GC-MS analysis of the finished retail product being published regularly. Until that time I would understand if people see WTAs as an alternative with more risk than pure pharma-grade nicotine-only liquids. However, as compared with smoking, the risk is most likely so far down the scale as to be insignificant.
My personal opinion - and I must emphasise that it is purely personal - is that vaping an unflavoured nic base, where the user tests various products to ensure that the least problematic base material format is used, has a risk of about 10,000 times less than smoking. Using non-pharma grades of carrier (PG, VG), adding flavourings, and adding anything else such as WTA (only because they might bring along with them some unwanted materials) has to increase the risk.
By choosing your price point and your added inclusions, you determine your own risk level. I think that is entirely appropriate, since any way of converting away from tobacco cigarettes is going to reduce your risk by several orders of magnitude, and any way you can manage that has to be good - whatever the cheap and nasty cocktail you choose to vape.
As you can see I am entirely in favour of people buying the highest quality refills they can, which would include those that start out being made from the most expensive ingredients and finished in the best laboratory manufacturing facilities, and then having the finished retail product extensively tested and the results published. But that's an individual's choice entirely. You pays your money and takes your choice.
I feel it is a ridiculous situation for the government to be involved in regulating and testing materials that, however bad they are, cannot possibly be any less than 100 times safer than smoking. But it is fair to say that quality controls are not where they should be, as yet. It is way past the time when the trade needed to do something about this.
