SOMETHING WE ALL SHOULD READ

[Whiskey]

Though I am Co-President of Southern California SFATA I would like to make very clear that I am writing this letter as an attorney, consultant and investment banker.

I have quietly watched the vapor industry (and in some cases consumers) for the past few months publicly hurl accusations against other companies, particularly on social media forums. These accusations seem to come in three primary forms; alleged marketing to children, bad test results for diacetyl and other “hazardous” substances and intellectual property violations.

I am requesting that those who claim they are taking these actions “for the benefit of the industry” actually think about what they are doing here. In an environment of deep hostility and in light of active attempts to shut the industry down, the result is that we are providing our opponents and challengers with the very ammunition they need to ensure this industry is regulated to death. Public shaming and witch-hunts, many of which may be without basis, will ensure that public’s perception of us remains tarnished.

Consumers absolutely need and are entitled to information about products which they use and that information should be true and valid information, not preliminary or incorrect information. The industry as a whole must become more professional handling these situations. Posting accusations in public without a full investigation, is both foolhardy and mimics the actions of our opponents.

I am suggesting that if anyone ever believes another company has done something in error, it would be mature and professional to contact them discretely and privately. Have a conversation with them. Don’t broadcast the results publicly for the world to see before a full respectful discussion has occurred and where appropriate, a detailed investigation has been carried out.

If the company seems resistant to such a discussion, ask several other industry participants to join you in the private talks and attempt to reach a resolution that includes the company itself participating in voluntary testing, providing additional test results if they exist or discussing IP violations or how their marketing might be perceived. Going public should be a last ditch effort and u8ndertaken only after the full consequences of those actions have been considered. Public statements give our enemies ammunition against the industry and may also lead to companies and individuals being sued.

Currently, there is no standardized test for diacetyl and some other hazardous substances; there are in fact several methods that may have varying results when compared side by side. In most industries, when a product comes back from initial testing with negative results, the manufacturer will have a second independent lab do another round of testing to confirm the negative results. Should that lab also have negative results, the company would take appropriate action. Should the results come back positive, the company and the two labs would work together to figure out why there was a variance and possibly a third independent lab would be brought in for additional testing. Without an industry agreed upon standardized test, it is premature to announce that a company’s E-liquids are hazardous without further examination by a second independent lab.

When it comes to the alleged marketing to minors, our industry does not do it. People within the industry may believe that another firm is doing so, but unless they are advertising their products on the Cartoon Network or in Nickelodeon magazine, that perception is strictly subjective – not objective. The reality is that many adults like both candy flavors and cartoons making such accusations in public can quickly lead the accuser to find themselves in legal hot water and unable to prove their case objectively.

Intellectual property violations, while much easier to prove than either of the prior two topics, should still be handled discretely initially.

My opinion may not be popular in the current atmosphere of “Outing” companies that don’t seem to be doing what some people think is best for the industry. However, I believe that my approach is a step in the direction of professionalizing our industry, not handing ammunition over to our enemies for their use (and thus making advocates, public relations professionals and lobbyists’ jobs MUCH harder). We can create a more collaborative environment for our industry to thrive in.

Please keep in mind that I am not suggesting that the industry hide anything from the public, but rather, that a responsible approach is taken instead of the sport of witch hunting. Consumers deserve correct and detailed facts about products they purchase, not premature information that has not been investigated. Companies are owed a chance to demonstrate that they have done the right thing or are willing to do take corrective action.

Let’s work together as an industry to make our products as good as possible, demonstrate to the world that we are professionals and show that this is not the wild frontier.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Mark Burton, JD CMAA

http://vapingunderground.com/thread...e-ecig-industry-regarding-accusations.100578/

Please discuss**

 

[outwest]

Several good points. I , myself, never thought companies were marketing to kids, but did (and do) feel that companies need to be very mindful of how their marketing can be viewed, and used against us, by those opposed to the vaping industry.

 

[Teresa P]

I agree completely with the OP, and this certainly changes my viewpoint on a couple of things. Perhaps I've actually been one of the witch hunters instead of the victimized witch....
And I do believe that packaging isn't so much a factor as the fact that someone somewhere will find any reason to shoot us down. If they wrapped juice bottles in brown paper bags, some jackass would be crying about children brown bagging their lunches, therefore we are trying to encourage them to vape....

 

[Barbara E.]

Your points are very valid. I agree that the 'marketing to minors' is basically a non-issue. And I think the 'intellectual property violation' stuff is pretty over-blown. But I find the 'diacetyl' and/or 'other bad stuff' issue to be scary.

I'm a b&m vape store and I make my own liquids. All my flavor suppliers have assured me that their flavors are 'diacetyl-free'. Now what if someone tests one of my liquids and finds diacetyl. Who is at fault?

Is it my fault because I made/sold the liquid? Is it the flavor supplier's fault because that's where I bought the flavors? Is it the flavor manufacturer's fault because they made the flavor initially? Is there any *fault* at all?

The problem is caused by the precision of the testing done by the original manufacturers. By law, manufacturers have to test their products to make sure they have less than 'X' amount (of bad stuff in whatever they're making). As long as it's less than 'X', it's ignored. In real life, the tests necessary to detect smaller and smaller quantities (of bad stuff) get more expensive the more precise they are. So the manufacturers use the test appropriate to find out what they need to know (that it's less than 'X'). If the amount of 'bad stuff' is 1/2 'X' or 1/10 'X', the test doesn't even detect it. As far as the manufacturers know, their product doesn't have 'bad stuff'. It does't mean that some 'bad stuff' is not there, just that it's not there in big enough quantities to register on the test.

So is it our government's fault for not demanding further testing? Is it the manufacturer's fault for not going above and beyond to test for greater precision? Should the suppliers test every flavor they get from the manufacturer? Should the eliquid manufacturer test every eliquid they make? Is there a correct answer?

We don't live in a perfect and sterile world.

(On a side note, did you know pizza sauce manufacturers aren't allowed to have more than 30 fly eggs per 100 grams of sauce? Hope you're not eating pizza right this minute. )

 

[DickyT]

Good share @Whiskey and several good points made. Thank you for this, I probably would have missed it otherwise.

 

[Whiskey]

Vbot posted it in Advocacy area, I brought it out from there, I wanted it seen better

 

[pete67]

Thank you Whiskey. You are right everyone needs to read this.

 

[potholerepairman]

Stopping the anti front of vaping is a huge battle that needs constant beatdowns, ty.

 

[Drone]

Your points are very valid. I agree that the 'marketing to minors' is basically a non-issue. And I think the 'intellectual property violation' stuff is pretty over-blown. But I find the 'diacetyl' and/or 'other bad stuff' issue to be scary.

I'm a b&m vape store and I make my own liquids. All my flavor suppliers have assured me that their flavors are 'diacetyl-free'. Now what if someone tests one of my liquids and finds diacetyl. Who is at fault?

Is it my fault because I made/sold the liquid? Is it the flavor supplier's fault because that's where I bought the flavors? Is it the flavor manufacturer's fault because they made the flavor initially? Is there any *fault* at all?

The problem is caused by the precision of the testing done by the original manufacturers. By law, manufacturers have to test their products to make sure they have less than 'X' amount (of bad stuff in whatever they're making). As long as it's less than 'X', it's ignored. In real life, the tests necessary to detect smaller and smaller quantities (of bad stuff) get more expensive the more precise they are. So the manufacturers use the test appropriate to find out what they need to know (that it's less than 'X'). If the amount of 'bad stuff' is 1/2 'X' or 1/10 'X', the test doesn't even detect it. As far as the manufacturers know, their product doesn't have 'bad stuff'. It does't mean that some 'bad stuff' is not there, just that it's not there in big enough quantities to register on the test.

So is it our government's fault for not demanding further testing? Is it the manufacturer's fault for not going above and beyond to test for greater precision? Should the suppliers test every flavor they get from the manufacturer? Should the eliquid manufacturer test every eliquid they make? Is there a correct answer?

We don't live in a perfect and sterile world.

(On a side note, did you know pizza sauce manufacturers aren't allowed to have more than 30 fly eggs per 100 grams of sauce? Hope you're not eating pizza right this minute. )

If I'm the consumer that bought your juice, we'll call it Dipsy Doozle Delight, and you told me it was diketone free... then you are absolutely at fault if it has diketones in it. I assume you are not putting a complete list of flavorings on your bottles because the recipe is your secret, so yes you lied to me the consumer if it does indeed have diketones in the flavorings. This is very simple. If that flavoring manufacturer lied to you about what is in their flavorings then you have an issue with them, but I would not have an issue with them because I have no idea what flavors are in Dipsy Doozle Delight. How could I have an issue with a manufacturer I'm not even aware of and that you haven't revealed. The flavor manufacturer is your problem and you are my problem.

Sorry, you don't get a free pass on this one by claiming ignorance. You are a juice manufacturer and have to accept the responsibility of making sure what you are selling me matches what you said you were selling me.

You might consider listing all the ingredients of the recipe on the bottle of Dipsy Doozle Delight if you don't want to assume the responsibility of believing the flavor manufacturers. At least that way I could do my due diligence if I choose to and you could say you have been forthcoming about what was in the juice from the beginning. If you are like most juice manufacturers though, you will not want to give out your recipe so it is incumbent upon you to make sure you are knowledgeable about what you are selling and truthful to your customers about the juice.

Or even better yet, just put a disclaimer on each bottle of juice you sell saying "May contain ingredients with diketones" if you don't want to even deal with what you are selling and then you can say you were truthful about the product you sell with no further liability or effort on your part.

 

[Mattp169]

Though I am Co-President of Southern California SFATA I would like to make very clear that I am writing this letter as an attorney, consultant and investment banker.

I have quietly watched the vapor industry (and in some cases consumers) for the past few months publicly hurl accusations against other companies, particularly on social media forums. These accusations seem to come in three primary forms; alleged marketing to children, bad test results for diacetyl and other “hazardous” substances and intellectual property violations.

I am requesting that those who claim they are taking these actions “for the benefit of the industry” actually think about what they are doing here. In an environment of deep hostility and in light of active attempts to shut the industry down, the result is that we are providing our opponents and challengers with the very ammunition they need to ensure this industry is regulated to death. Public shaming and witch-hunts, many of which may be without basis, will ensure that public’s perception of us remains tarnished.

Consumers absolutely need and are entitled to information about products which they use and that information should be true and valid information, not preliminary or incorrect information. The industry as a whole must become more professional handling these situations. Posting accusations in public without a full investigation, is both foolhardy and mimics the actions of our opponents.

I am suggesting that if anyone ever believes another company has done something in error, it would be mature and professional to contact them discretely and privately. Have a conversation with them. Don’t broadcast the results publicly for the world to see before a full respectful discussion has occurred and where appropriate, a detailed investigation has been carried out.

If the company seems resistant to such a discussion, ask several other industry participants to join you in the private talks and attempt to reach a resolution that includes the company itself participating in voluntary testing, providing additional test results if they exist or discussing IP violations or how their marketing might be perceived. Going public should be a last ditch effort and u8ndertaken only after the full consequences of those actions have been considered. Public statements give our enemies ammunition against the industry and may also lead to companies and individuals being sued.

Currently, there is no standardized test for diacetyl and some other hazardous substances; there are in fact several methods that may have varying results when compared side by side. In most industries, when a product comes back from initial testing with negative results, the manufacturer will have a second independent lab do another round of testing to confirm the negative results. Should that lab also have negative results, the company would take appropriate action. Should the results come back positive, the company and the two labs would work together to figure out why there was a variance and possibly a third independent lab would be brought in for additional testing. Without an industry agreed upon standardized test, it is premature to announce that a company’s E-liquids are hazardous without further examination by a second independent lab.

When it comes to the alleged marketing to minors, our industry does not do it. People within the industry may believe that another firm is doing so, but unless they are advertising their products on the Cartoon Network or in Nickelodeon magazine, that perception is strictly subjective – not objective. The reality is that many adults like both candy flavors and cartoons making such accusations in public can quickly lead the accuser to find themselves in legal hot water and unable to prove their case objectively.

Intellectual property violations, while much easier to prove than either of the prior two topics, should still be handled discretely initially.

My opinion may not be popular in the current atmosphere of “Outing” companies that don’t seem to be doing what some people think is best for the industry. However, I believe that my approach is a step in the direction of professionalizing our industry, not handing ammunition over to our enemies for their use (and thus making advocates, public relations professionals and lobbyists’ jobs MUCH harder). We can create a more collaborative environment for our industry to thrive in.

Please keep in mind that I am not suggesting that the industry hide anything from the public, but rather, that a responsible approach is taken instead of the sport of witch hunting. Consumers deserve correct and detailed facts about products they purchase, not premature information that has not been investigated. Companies are owed a chance to demonstrate that they have done the right thing or are willing to do take corrective action.

Let’s work together as an industry to make our products as good as possible, demonstrate to the world that we are professionals and show that this is not the wild frontier.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Mark Burton, JD CMAA

http://vapingunderground.com/thread...e-ecig-industry-regarding-accusations.100578/

Please discuss**

THANK GOD, I have been trying to make these same points in many of my post

However i will disagree with the whole marketing to children thing. Its not about whether they are actively trying to market to children, its the perception, which is subjective and that perception gives our enemies ammunition. Because we are fighting a war of public perception not reality on this issue. So the perception matters. This is why I am against any juice makers using labels that could appear to appeal to children. As much as i like some of the cartoonish images people come up with, it is just ammunition for the enemy

 

[dionysuskiss]

This is what makes me angry about the whole thing. I don't use 5P, so I don't feel personally injured. What gets me, are the lies and the denial about the whole thing. All this has caused a feeding frenzy among vapers and the vaping industry alike. Can you imagine, what the ANTZ and our other enemies are going to do with this? I have no doubt, that it WILL become an issue we will struggle with.

 

[Zamazam]

Vapers who use Five Pawns eliquid have every right to be fucking furious at Five Pawns for the deceit and lies. Is the solution to get other big juice makers to add peer pressure to Five Pawns as suggested by the lawyer? Knowing what I do about Five Pawns, they would give a 1 finger salute to the other ejuice companies. I realize that having a free for all on social media gives the Antz ammo, but at the same time it puts companies on notice that they better be transparent about the AP and DE levels in their ejuice. Do we self-censure and not discuss it and let the "industry" handle it? Do we form committees and study groups to come up with standards? In both cases, the situations become political (not with politicians) and tend to get caught up in the minutiae and wording of statements. One of the best ways to kill off progress.

There is good and bad in this situation. Vapers uniting and demanding transparency on AP and DE is a great thing. Companies better listen to their customers or be relegated to the dustbin of arrogance. The bad of course is making the truth public because the Antz will use it. I'm still for making the issues public if a company knowingly lied and deceived their customers.

 

[Mattp169]

Vapers who use Five Pawns eliquid have every right to be fucking furious at Five Pawns for the deceit and lies. Is the solution to get other big juice makers to add peer pressure to Five Pawns as suggested by the lawyer? Knowing what I do about Five Pawns, they would give a 1 finger salute to the other ejuice companies. I realize that having a free for all on social media gives the Antz ammo, but at the same time it puts companies on notice that they better be transparent about the AP and DE levels in their ejuice. Do we self-censure and not discuss it and let the "industry" handle it? Do we form committees and study groups to come up with standards? In both cases, the situations become political (not with politicians) and tend to get caught up in the minutiae and wording of statements. One of the best ways to kill off progress.

There is good and bad in this situation. Vapers uniting and demanding transparency on AP and DE is a great thing. Companies better listen to their customers or be relegated to the dustbin of arrogance. The bad of course is making the truth public because the Antz will use it. I'm still for making the issues public if a company knowingly lied and deceived their customers.

I think this post is awesome. We should talk about it, but my point and i believe whiskey's point is,what evidence do we have they meant to deceive. I have seen the CDC's recommendations and the ECTF's. they differ drastically. So lets say that the 5 pawns test showed to be acceptable by the ECTF for all 1 juices not just 6, but not the CDC? did they lie then?

Yes lets discuss why the results are different. lets talk about what acceptable amounts are, but to immediately jump to the conclusion that 5P lied gives the enemy more ammunition.

 

[Browncoat]

It's interesting how different people read the same article and take away different things from it. For me, the takeaway was the author's indication of how toxic the vaping community is.

Like most of you, I have other hobbies and interests outside of vaping that take me to other forums and websites. All of these have their own community of people...both online and off. Vaping, as a whole, is far and away the worst offender with people and companies practically lining up to eat each other. This community is its own worst enemy.

 

[Drone]

I pretty much agree with you @Zamazam . On the one hand I hate to stir up shit with ANTZ breathing down out necks. But I refuse compromise with my health, regardless of the unintended harm it might cause. Wasn't this the same thing the big tobacco companies did to most of us with the hidden "ingredients" they put in cigarettes to keep us hooked and beholden. This is just unacceptable from any ejuice manufacturer to have this data and do nothing about it, and then have lawyers say to sweep the dirt under the carpet before the company comes to visit. And 5Pawns did their own test that showed that the juice was totally unacceptable to some markets and likely unacceptable to most markets. They knew, and not through outside testing, this was from their own testing.

If the FDA is ever going to take us seriously about really wanting to promote vaping as harm reduction and beneficial to smokers, we must expose and deal with issues like this. Not hide it and pretend it doesn't exist, or have a couple lawyers reach a settlement behind closed doors. A positive outcome to this issue for vapers, regardless of the short term potential embarrassment to the vaping industry, is a benefit to all vaper's health and will become a guiding principle to all ejuice manufacturers going forward in the open as an unacceptable practice. As distasteful as it is, a message needs to be sent to ejuice manufacturers that this is not acceptable and will not just go away without being addressed.

I apologize to those that would rather stifle this whole mess, but there is a greater good that can and should be addressed.

 

[AmandaD]

I smoked for 40 years and then moved to ecigs for harm reduction. I agree that we need to become more self-policing, but not to the point of drawing so much attention we can't buy juice - or worse ingredients for DIY.

It's one thing for us to self-police. It's quite another to make a public scandal to enforce the antz.

Just my 02c worth of course!

 

[NGAHaze]

Obviously 5 pawns is a member of SFATA and I suspect they probably solicited this little intervention on their behalf. Gotta protect the membership right?

Sorry to be so cynical but imo, this is just self serving BS and really a stinging indictment of SFATA and their utter uselessness to us as consumers. He offers a possible explanation for the testing results to there being "no standardized test for diacetyl and some other hazardous substances" but why is that? It isn't like it is terribly difficult to run a trace for those components so why hasn't SFATA taken the reigns and driven some form of standardization? This isn't some new concern that just popped up recently. My guess is that it simply isn't a priority for them. They appear to be more about promoting the business interests of the membership than any real altruistic concern for consumers. I mean really, what have they done toward the goal they speak of in working "together as an industry to make our products as good as possible"? Hmm, I noticed there was no mention of "safe" in there unfortunately.

I do hate that this situation is likely to be used against us but do you honestly think there would have been movement in a positive direction voluntarily without it? It hadn't happened thus far despite the fact that the potential dangers of DAP have been out there for quite some time now.

 

[Zamazam]

He offers a possible explanation for the testing results to there being "no standardized test for diacetyl and some other hazardous substances" but why is that? It isn't like it is terribly difficult to run a trace for those components so why hasn't SFATA taken the reigns and driven some form of standardization?

Actually, standardized tests exist, they have for a long time since foodstuffs are analyzed constantly. A gas chromatograph mass spectrometer does not lie, it simply analyzes the chemical components of a sample and then prints the results. The "Standardized Testing" mantra is often used when the people on the receiving negative end of those results don't like said results, hence lawyers. Coming up with a chain of evidence type system is what they are angling at, and of course a committee needs to draft the system, ratify it, re-ratify it, and then a special commission needs to approve it. All political, all very expensive, and of course who make the money in that situation? If you guessed "Lawyers", you are correct.

 

[Drone]

@NGAHaze , your post is a bit cynical and unfortunately accurate. Dr. Faralinos study was done a year ago. It was peer reviewed and published. There have been other noteworthy studies done on the same subject, with the same basic conclusions. Why is this such a sudden issue? Perhaps because the vaping public was not aware of the issue that was being hidden until a few Like Cloud 9, Vapor Shark and a few others finally brought it out into the light.

Most of us vapers know, on a theoretical basis, that diketones are bad news. But it sure doesn't seem like many very popular ejuice manufacturers are overly concerned. As long as no one complained (or found out what was in their ejuice) they would stick to doing business as usual. Do these companies have the vapers best interest at heart? Or do they truly believe it's OK to include diketones in their ejuice without clear disclosure. I am all for allowing folks to make an informed decision on what they want to vape. Even if some folks want juice with diketones. But an informed decision requires information first.

It is clear this is not even close to a self regulating industry, this is closer to a self serving industry as you would expect with an industry filled with folks that want to keep things hidden in the interest of trying to not cause waves with those who wish to infringe on their rights. I can't even disagree with folks that chose to hide rather than face this issue, I understand that that is a personal choice and respect it. But I'm more concerned about dealing with this type of issue openly and addressing the issue in an intelligent and informed manner rather than pretending it doesn't exist. Even if that means dealing with ANTZ and the FDA if it comes to that. Fear of ANTZ and the FDA should not trump legitimate health concerns, and it seems abundantly clear we can't keep this hush hush and reduce our legitimate health concerns.

 

[Merrick92]

'Tobacco cigarettes smoke contains both compounds, at levels 100 times higher for diacetyl and 10 times higher for acetyl propionyl compared to e-cigarette average daily exposure.' Food for thought....

 

[nabibrian]

knowingly lied and deceived their customers.

*emphasis mine

OMG, they have WHAT in my E-Liquid??????

 

[Browncoat]

Obviously 5 pawns is a member of SFATA and I suspect they probably solicited this little intervention on their behalf. Gotta protect the membership right?

Sorry to be so cynical but imo, this is just self serving BS and really a stinging indictment of SFATA and their utter uselessness to us as consumers. He offers a possible explanation for the testing results to there being "no standardized test for diacetyl and some other hazardous substances" but why is that? It isn't like it is terribly difficult to run a trace for those components so why hasn't SFATA taken the reigns and driven some form of standardization?

Don't forget AEMSA, who is equally useless.

 

[RobbieR]

If I'm the consumer that bought your juice, we'll call it Dipsy Doozle Delight, and you told me it was diketone free... then you are absolutely at fault if it has diketones in it. I assume you are not putting a complete list of flavorings on your bottles because the recipe is your secret, so yes you lied to me the consumer if it does indeed have diketones in the flavorings. This is very simple. If that flavoring manufacturer lied to you about what is in their flavorings then you have an issue with them, but I would not have an issue with them because I have no idea what flavors are in Dipsy Doozle Delight. How could I have an issue with a manufacturer I'm not even aware of and that you haven't revealed. The flavor manufacturer is your problem and you are my problem.

Sorry, you don't get a free pass on this one by claiming ignorance. You are a juice manufacturer and have to accept the responsibility of making sure what you are selling me matches what you said you were selling me.

You might consider listing all the ingredients of the recipe on the bottle of Dipsy Doozle Delight if you don't want to assume the responsibility of believing the flavor manufacturers. At least that way I could do my due diligence if I choose to and you could say you have been forthcoming about what was in the juice from the beginning. If you are like most juice manufacturers though, you will not want to give out your recipe so it is incumbent upon you to make sure you are knowledgeable about what you are selling and truthful to your customers about the juice.

Or even better yet, just put a disclaimer on each bottle of juice you sell saying "May contain ingredients with diketones" if you don't want to even deal with what you are selling and then you can say you were truthful about the product you sell with no further liability or effort on your part.

I agree with Drone, if you make and sell Juice, you are 100% responsible for whats in it.

 

[RobbieR]

IMHO this letter is a bunch of crap. SHHHHHHH everyone be quiet so we can continue to operate like a bunch of idiots and make tons of money without drawing the governments attention.

 

[Mattp169]

IMHO this letter is a bunch of crap. SHHHHHHH everyone be quiet so we can continue to operate like a bunch of idiots and make tons of money without drawing the governments attention.

Really people??

I think what Whiskey is saying is simple, Dont't rush to conclusions. We all know how easy it is to make mistakes. Businesses are no different. Did 5P mess up? Probably. Did they do it intentionally? That is yet to be determined. Everyone seems to want to immediately assume 5P knowingly and deceifully sold juices that contain more AP and DP then what some are saying are safe.

We do not even have all the facts.

I think the questions would be why does 5P feel the numbers they released in their own findings are safe numbers?? Do they have anything to back that up?
Has anyone else besides 9 clouds sent out 5P for testing recently. Since there seem to be 2 very different results between the 2 tests. Maybe a third test is needed to see things better. IMHO there is much more going on with this issue for 5P.

If it comes out in the end 5P manipulated data, was completely dishonest etc, THEN BASH the hell out of them, stop buying their juice. But maybe we could wait for some more information before deciding if they are dishonest.

 

[Robert B]

Obviously 5 pawns is a member of SFATA and I suspect they probably solicited this little intervention on their behalf. Gotta protect the membership right?

Damned the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead....

 

[Merrick92]

Has any long time smoker been diagnosed with popcorn lung? I couldn't find any article online. Could it be that diacetyl isn't the primary cause? Anyone remember the scare over cinnamon flavoring? This business has been about jumping to conclusions since it's inception. I don't vape 5p, but I didn't vape suicide bunny either. Remember when certain members of SFATA(*cough Dimitri cough*) ripped that company a new asshole for having high levels of acetyl propionyl in their juice? It's like watching a badly scripted soap opera......

 

[RobbieR]

Really people??

I think what Whiskey is saying is simple, Dont't rush to conclusions. We all know how easy it is to make mistakes. Businesses are no different. Did 5P mess up? Probably. Did they do it intentionally? That is yet to be determined. Everyone seems to want to immediately assume 5P knowingly and deceifully sold juices that contain more AP and DP then what some are saying are safe.

We do not even have all the facts.

I think the questions would be why does 5P feel the numbers they released in their own findings are safe numbers?? Do they have anything to back that up?
Has anyone else besides 9 clouds sent out 5P for testing recently. Since there seem to be 2 very different results between the 2 tests. Maybe a third test is needed to see things better. IMHO there is much more going on with this issue for 5P.

If it comes out in the end 5P manipulated data, was completely dishonest etc, THEN BASH the hell out of them, stop buying their juice. But maybe we could wait for some more information before deciding if they are dishonest.

My comment was about the entire letter not just about the bad test results. We can only assume the author was referring to the Five Pawns test results because he did not give us the courtesy of a name.

I agree we do not have ALL the facts, but we do have two lab tests & both of them show high levels of AP & DE. How many labs tests are enough before action should be taken? For me the two tests are enough evidence for me to not put their juice in my body. One of those Lab Tests is from Five Pawns themselves and that is the test the Canadian trade association ECTA used to tell its members to stop selling 5 flavors of Five Pawn Juice and warn customers about the contents of 3 other Five Pawns flavors before selling it.

Its clear you want more facts regarding the meaning of the numbers in the tests & I applaud you for doing your due diligence before jumping to conclusions. I am not a scientist or a doctor so I can't tell you the meaning of the numbers either. What we do know is inhaling AP & DE is bad for you & Five Pawns knew their Juice contained AP & DE since October 2014 and they did not disclose it to their customers. The levels of AP & DE in some of the Five Pawns Juices are higher than what is considered acceptable by the vaping industry / community. For me the acceptable level of AP & DE is ZERO or barely detectable trace amounts.

The big question for me is did Five Pawns market their juice as being AP & DE free since October 2014 ??


Edit: I just read on another site that the safe Intake level of AP in an industrial environment is 135 micrograms or less a day. My understanding is (please correct me if I am wrong) 1 PPM = 1 microgram. So if a juice has 100 PPM of AP in 1 ML and you vape 4 ml of that juice a day you are ingesting 400 micrograms of AP a day. I am not 100% sure of these numbers, maybe someone with more insight can comment if this is accurate.

 

[Merrick92]

If you vape flavored e liquid, you are probably inhaling some level of diacetyl,ap, diketone. A vast majority contain some level of one of these chemicals. Though not as high a level a few in particular.

 

[RobbieR]

If you vape flavored e liquid, you are probably inhaling some level of diacetyl,ap, diketone. A vast majority contain some level of one of these chemicals. Though not as high a level a few in particular.

I am aware there are trace amounts in most juice but I was not aware that people are selling "Premium" Juice with levels off the charts. 2500ppm of AP is the highest level of AP ever found in any juice tested.

 

[Merrick92]

This looks like it was just posted.
http://fivepawns.com/five-pawns-test-results/

 

[Barbara E.]

If I'm the consumer that bought your juice, we'll call it Dipsy Doozle Delight, and you told me it was diketone free... then you are absolutely at fault if it has diketones in it. I assume you are not putting a complete list of flavorings on your bottles because the recipe is your secret, so yes you lied to me the consumer if it does indeed have diketones in the flavorings. This is very simple. If that flavoring manufacturer lied to you about what is in their flavorings then you have an issue with them, but I would not have an issue with them because I have no idea what flavors are in Dipsy Doozle Delight. How could I have an issue with a manufacturer I'm not even aware of and that you haven't revealed. The flavor manufacturer is your problem and you are my problem.

Sorry, you don't get a free pass on this one by claiming ignorance. You are a juice manufacturer and have to accept the responsibility of making sure what you are selling me matches what you said you were selling me. <snip>

Ok, I see your point and it's a valid one. So, for a juice maker, what is the solution?

If I can't trust the flavoring companies, I'd either have to 1) test each batch of liquid I make or 2) give out my recipe or 3) put up a sign in my store/on my website saying that the flavorings used have been warranted by their manufacturers as being diacetyl-free but have not been independently tested. (3) is the only viable option (unless you're making multi-gallon batches which I assume some people are but I'm not one of them).

Or am I missing another option??

PS - By the way, I wasn't looking for a 'free pass'. I've always done '3' (told people that the flavors used are warranted by their manufacturers as being diacetyl-free but not independently tested).

 

[outwest]

There's always option 4, don't claim anything without lab testing of every batch (or at least, lab testing of random batches)

 

[VinceV1]

Any jounalist would say : It has to be published if a company makes false claims.

 

[Merrick92]

There's always option 4, don't claim anything without lab testing of every batch (or at least, lab testing of random batches)

and on the consumer end of this, assume every liquid contains these chemicals unless you can verify on your own that they are free of such.

 

[VinceV1]

and on the consumer end of this, assume every liquid contains these chemicals unless you can verify on your own that they are free of such.

Sorry. but people don't have 30 000 $ to test everything by themselves. Companies can do a double check, by 2 different labs. They will be highly valuable to customers acting like this.

 

[Drone]

Ok, I see your point and it's a valid one. So, for a juice maker, what is the solution?

If I can't trust the flavoring companies, I'd either have to 1) test each batch of liquid I make or 2) give out my recipe or 3) put up a sign in my store/on my website saying that the flavorings used have been warranted by their manufacturers as being diacetyl-free but have not been independently tested. (3) is the only viable option (unless you're making multi-gallon batches which I assume some people are but I'm not one of them).

Or am I missing another option??

PS - By the way, I wasn't looking for a 'free pass'. I've always done '3' (told people that the flavors used are warranted by their manufacturers as being diacetyl-free but not independently tested).

I guess there's 2 points of view here @Barbara E. , you can do what's expedient for your business, which is a very reasonable course of action considering the high cost of running a B&M, and not do any testing. Or you can accept the costs of doing at least initial testing with a final formulated recipe, and retest if you ever change ingredients or flavor vendors (also making your flavor vendors aware that they must disclose any change in flavor recipes they make going forward). By doing at least one test with a final formulation you will have a reasonable argument of due diligence. A single test would cost somewhere around 100 to 150. Not cheap, but not excessively expensive. Granted, this is not testing every batch. But this is certainly showing a reasonable effort for a small juice supplier. Of course, if you ever become vape famous and start supplying your juice to other shops or distributors you would be wise to do much more.

If you do no testing, you could assume a vapid look on your face and say you have no idea if queried about any element of your juice products. Sounds a bit funny, but would be a safe response if you legitimately don't have any testing data of what ingredients might be in your juice. Or even better as I suggested in an earlier post, put a disclaimer on your labels that this juice may contain diketones. This is not expensive and leaves the customer in charge of the decision of safety. I don't think this would be an unreasonable claim since you haven't tested the products.

Either of these solutions would be honest and a show of good faith to your customers. As a small B&M I wouldn't expect you to be held to the same standards as a large ejuice company, but that doesn't mean there aren't reasonable approaches to safety that your customers would (or at least should) appreciate.

The absolute worst thing you could do is make claims you can't substantiate. Like claiming no diketones because your flavor manufacture said everything is fine and not to worry. And I'll bet you couldn't get a single flavor manufacturer to put that in writing for you, so you will still be held accountable by your customers for those claims, and you would have to hold your flavor manufacturers responsible. And good luck with dealing a flavor manufacturers lawyers over that type of issue, because they state they make no claims that the products you buy from them are safe for inhalation.

 

[Merrick92]

Sorry. but people don't have 30 000 $ to test everything by themselves. Companies can do a double check, by 2 different labs. They will be highly valuable to customers acting like this.

Sorry. but what I meant was that people should due their own due diligence with regards to the juice manufacturer. If the manufacturer can't provide you, the consumer, with proof their juice is free of these chemicals, then don't buy it. Or vape it anyway, but assume that these chemicals are indeed present.

 

[Barbara E.]

This has been quite a discussion and it's been interesting reading everyone's different opinions.

In real life, testing every batch is unrealistic for all but the biggest juice manufacturers. Someone like me - who makes batches in liters and sells those liters for less than what it would cost to test them - would be immediately out of business. That may or may not matter to you (generic 'you') but testing would also substantially add to the cost of doing business to the big manufacturers, thereby increasing the cost of liquid to all consumers. And even if we tested each batch, what level would be considered safe/acceptable?

(If testing like this became a requirement, there's all sorts of legal ramifications too. I'm not even going to get into those.)

There's also the point that cigarettes contain diacetyl, yet no cases of 'popcorn lung' have been attributed to cigarettes. (And I'm pretty sure that if the ANTZ could have blamed cigarettes for 'popcorn lung', they would have.) Is our concern a tempest in a teapot??

As a (small) manufacturer, I want to do things 'right', but I sometimes feel like people are out to 'get' all manufacturers. I think most manufacturers are trying to do the right thing but there are no rules because vaping is such a new industry. No one can say vaping is completely safe. As a matter of fact, *nothing* is completely safe. I'd welcome rules as long as they were realistic and applied equally to everyone but I'm afraid some people's (perhaps unfounded?) concerns might wreck the vaping industry by 1) eliminating it entirely or 2) making it so cost prohibitive that only those companies with big enough pockets can meet the requirements (think 'Big Tobacco').

If you (again, generic 'you') is worried about diaceyl/diketones, I would advise staying away from any bakery/custard/butter/creamy flavors. From what I understand, fruits are relatively safe. Or switch to unflavored. Or simply stop vaping.

PS - On a side note, I just went to the TFA site to get their exact wording regarding diacetyl. They used to explicitly state their flavorings contain no diacetyl. Now they say "Inhalation of flavor chemical blends by use of electronic cigarettes is a popular and more chemically pure alternative to traditional tobacco smoking. However, please note that this use of flavors is a relatively new practice, and has not been safety-tested by any official organizations. Therefore, we are not able to guarantee that any flavor is safe for this use. This would also be true for any other flavor manufacturer. There are no companies that can guarantee that any flavor is safe for long-term use. There has just not been enough time to do this kind of testing."

I can find no specific mention of diacetyl on their site.

Capella still says "We do not use Diacetyl in ANY of our flavorings. Even though Diacetyl is on the FDA approved GRAS list for flavoring manufacturers, there are other compounds available to mimic a buttery/creamy taste."

By 'other compounds', I assume they're talking about AP and acetoin, i.e. diketones.

(This is not a slam against either company. Both are reputable and I believe they're doing the best they can given the circumstances.)

 

[Mattp169]

here is my thoughts

if a juice vendor uses a formula. The vendor requests from the manufacturer of their ingredients the testing for DA and AP. Then the juice maker knows if they have AP and DA in their juice. But all ingredients must be tested, flavor,VG,PG, and nic.

So we have these organizations like SFTFA and many others who could collectively store and retain test results form the manufacturer's of ingredients used in juice. These organizations could request test results from the big makers like Cap,FA,TFA,etc. Many of these companies have already run the testing.

If a particular maker does not want to pay for testing, then it would be up to the decision of the organization and its members to try and raise the money to pay for their own testing.

These organizations could also have pg.vg.and nic tested

So lets take an organization like SFTFA. They have on record that flavors a,b and C have test results showing no AP or DA or amounts that are basically negligible. They have on record tests that show this companies pg and vg and nic have no AP or DA.
The organization also checks yearly for change sin formulations or is informed by a company when the change a n ingredients formula,

Then a juice maker could simply check the SFTFA website and see if their ingredients are DA and AP free. The juice maker could then say " this juice ONLY contains ingredients recognized by the SFTFA as being DA and AP free as of DATE ( the date the ingredient last tested was tested)"

Now this would not be an endorsement by the SFTFA, but merely a claim by the juice maker to help put user's mind's at ease. It would show the world we are trying to police ourselves without government regulation needed, or at least give the government a frame to make thrir regulations upon. IT would also setup juice makers to already be compliant with government regulation as they come.

Now if organizations are large enough to create enough interest form its members and have a large enough juice maker membership, then dues could be used towards the yearly testing of random samples of a juice companies product.

So say I made juice and I along with 200 juice manufacturers were all members of lets say SFTFA . We all make claims that our juice only contains ingredients recognized by the SFTFA to be DA and AP Free. if the SFTFA took random samples of all 200 juice makers juices once a year and sent them collectively to be tested. One would hope that the overall cost of that testing would be lower per juice then if the individual juice makers sent things in individually/. Dues paid b the juice makers into the organization could be used to pay for this testing. All juices found to be AP and DA free could then display a certified badge form the organization for a period of x months Members could then request to have other flavors of thrir juices sent in with the large random test batch and pay for that from tehir own pocket, hopefully at a reduced cost.

Collection of all samples would be blindly done. The organization could easily place orders for teh juices and have them delivered without the juice makers knowledge. Then once the samples are collected the juice makers could then refund any costs to the organization. This would be part of an agreement between the members and the organization.


This could get somewhat complicated. But this is one way to do things without the government that could help the whole community.

I do not even know if what I suggest is viable when it comes to testing with costs It may costs small makers more then its worth to be part of the organization etc.

There is the potential for people to lie and just say the ingredients they use are da and ap free according to some organization. However then this would fall on the juice maker. Making false claims like that would open them up to serious lawsuits

I just think with the many organizations out there trying to protect vaping, some or all could find a way to help out with this situation, to ease thr burden on the small juice makers

Its clear we want to know what we are vaping, juice makers should be able to protect their recipes, the government is breathing down our necks. If we don't react, the government's reactions could put a lot of small business owners out of business fast, and significantly raise the cost of vaping. If we work together we may be able to steer the government's reactions and keep vaping a safe and affordable alternative to smoking

 

[Time]

It's interesting how different people read the same article and take away different things from it. For me, the takeaway was the author's indication of how toxic the vaping community is.

Like most of you, I have other hobbies and interests outside of vaping that take me to other forums and websites. All of these have their own community of people...both online and off. Vaping, as a whole, is far and away the worst offender with people and companies practically lining up to eat each other. This community is its own worst enemy.

That's what I was going to say when I read the OP. You beat me to it.

Further reading the comments in the thread just confirms it. Rather than debate the issue(over and over and over again) I'll just recommend that anyone that does not want to get bent over and butt plugged by regulation and tax should not rely on the vaping "community" to stop it because they are very busy bending themselves over. I, personally, have taken the route of stocking my own supply. I realized a few months ago that many of my fellow vapers, though well meaning, are doing as much to push vaping into high regulation, high cost and high tax as the anti-vaping crowd.

Now folks, carry on digging the hole that's been created even deeper. The regulators love it when the argument is made for them.

 

[Mattp169]

That's what I was going to say when I read the OP. You beat me to it.

Further reading the comments in the thread just confirms it. Rather than debate the issue(over and over and over again) I'll just recommend that anyone that does not want to get bent over and butt plugged by regulation and tax should not rely on the vaping "community" to stop it because they are very busy bending themselves over. I, personally, have taken the route of stocking my own supply. I realized a few months ago that many of my fellow vapers, though well meaning, are doing as much to push vaping into high regulation, high cost and high tax as the anti-vaping crowd.

Now carry on digging the hole that's been created even deeper. The regulators love it when the argument is made for them.

I hate the fact, You are right.

 

[Barbara E.]

Do cigarette makers have to disclose how much diacetyl is in cigarettes??

It's a real question, I honestly don't know. When I smoked, I didn't know cigarettes contained diacetyl. It's only since I started vaping that I've become familiar with it.

 

[VinceV1]

Do cigarette makers have to disclose how much diacetyl is in cigarettes?? It's a real question, I honestly don't know. When I smoked, I didn't know cigarettes contained diacetyl. It's only since I started vaping that I've become familiar with it.

Vaping should be the best alternative to cigarettes. This was the first goal. If the business model is to copy the tobacco industry, this makes no sense anymore.

 

[Saddletramp1200]

Do cigarette makers have to disclose how much diacetyl is in cigarettes??

It's a real question, I honestly don't know. When I smoked, I didn't know cigarettes contained diacetyl. It's only since I started vaping that I've become familiar with it.

I have seen between 490,000 & 12 Million things. I don't think a single compound will matter. I Doubt they would disclose it anyway.

 

[Barbara E.]

Vaping should be the best alternative to cigarettes. This was the first goal. If the business model is to copy the tobacco industry, this makes no sense anymore.

I'm not talking about business models or anything like that. (Heck, I didn't study business, I'm not even sure what business models are.)

Seriously, I'm just wondering if cigarette makers have to disclose diacetyl levels.

 

[outwest]

From my understanding, it was only a few years back that they even had to give the govt a list of ingredients. So, I highly doubt that they have to, but dunno.

 

[MadMeathead]

My two cents...

If an industry consistently tells a govt they can and should self regulate. Then they should do that. If they encourage their customer base to vocally support the industries best interests to legislators then perhaps the industry should at least be relatively aware of the consumers interests.

This last week has demonstrated that at least some members of the industry (some of them quite prominent) have behaved in a manner that neither places the industry in a good light, nor demonstrates much good will towards the customer base.

I do agree the vaping public should not have to publicly shame the bad actors.

The prominent trade organization the letter writer holds a lofty position in but apparently is not speaking for should have done that. That's called self regulation.

Instead the letter written goes on about witch hunts, the consumers place in voicing concerns, and the need to keep negative things quiet for our own good.

I disagree whole heartedly.

Some actions deserve to be shamed. Lying to your customer base about potentially harmful constituents in your product is absolutely one of those actions.

If the trade org that keeps telling us that it's capable of self regulating won't do it, then I expect the costumer base will.

TL;DR I thought the letter was bunk.


Pulled directly from my arse using Tapatalk. That's right I post from the Throne Room.

 

[Saddletramp1200]

Though I am Co-President of Southern California SFATA I would like to make very clear that I am writing this letter as an attorney, consultant and investment banker.

I have quietly watched the vapor industry (and in some cases consumers) for the past few months publicly hurl accusations against other companies, particularly on social media forums. These accusations seem to come in three primary forms; alleged marketing to children, bad test results for diacetyl and other “hazardous” substances and intellectual property violations.

I am requesting that those who claim they are taking these actions “for the benefit of the industry” actually think about what they are doing here. In an environment of deep hostility and in light of active attempts to shut the industry down, the result is that we are providing our opponents and challengers with the very ammunition they need to ensure this industry is regulated to death. Public shaming and witch-hunts, many of which may be without basis, will ensure that public’s perception of us remains tarnished.

Consumers absolutely need and are entitled to information about products which they use and that information should be true and valid information, not preliminary or incorrect information. The industry as a whole must become more professional handling these situations. Posting accusations in public without a full investigation, is both foolhardy and mimics the actions of our opponents.

I am suggesting that if anyone ever believes another company has done something in error, it would be mature and professional to contact them discretely and privately. Have a conversation with them. Don’t broadcast the results publicly for the world to see before a full respectful discussion has occurred and where appropriate, a detailed investigation has been carried out.

If the company seems resistant to such a discussion, ask several other industry participants to join you in the private talks and attempt to reach a resolution that includes the company itself participating in voluntary testing, providing additional test results if they exist or discussing IP violations or how their marketing might be perceived. Going public should be a last ditch effort and u8ndertaken only after the full consequences of those actions have been considered. Public statements give our enemies ammunition against the industry and may also lead to companies and individuals being sued.

Currently, there is no standardized test for diacetyl and some other hazardous substances; there are in fact several methods that may have varying results when compared side by side. In most industries, when a product comes back from initial testing with negative results, the manufacturer will have a second independent lab do another round of testing to confirm the negative results. Should that lab also have negative results, the company would take appropriate action. Should the results come back positive, the company and the two labs would work together to figure out why there was a variance and possibly a third independent lab would be brought in for additional testing. Without an industry agreed upon standardized test, it is premature to announce that a company’s E-liquids are hazardous without further examination by a second independent lab.

When it comes to the alleged marketing to minors, our industry does not do it. People within the industry may believe that another firm is doing so, but unless they are advertising their products on the Cartoon Network or in Nickelodeon magazine, that perception is strictly subjective – not objective. The reality is that many adults like both candy flavors and cartoons making such accusations in public can quickly lead the accuser to find themselves in legal hot water and unable to prove their case objectively.

Intellectual property violations, while much easier to prove than either of the prior two topics, should still be handled discretely initially.

My opinion may not be popular in the current atmosphere of “Outing” companies that don’t seem to be doing what some people think is best for the industry. However, I believe that my approach is a step in the direction of professionalizing our industry, not handing ammunition over to our enemies for their use (and thus making advocates, public relations professionals and lobbyists’ jobs MUCH harder). We can create a more collaborative environment for our industry to thrive in.

Please keep in mind that I am not suggesting that the industry hide anything from the public, but rather, that a responsible approach is taken instead of the sport of witch hunting. Consumers deserve correct and detailed facts about products they purchase, not premature information that has not been investigated. Companies are owed a chance to demonstrate that they have done the right thing or are willing to do take corrective action.

Let’s work together as an industry to make our products as good as possible, demonstrate to the world that we are professionals and show that this is not the wild frontier.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Mark Burton, JD CMAA

http://vapingunderground.com/thread...e-ecig-industry-regarding-accusations.100578/

Please discuss**

Your an Attorney? Well I will try to sit up straight when I post. I am amazed by the cheap shots from other industry people for their efforts to keep people smoking. Low blows with trumped up study's, and other things that are downright lies. Parents are the responsible party in knowing what their children are involved it. Nothing in this world is safe. Vaping is an ADULT hobby. Not amassed for the enjoyment of Children. Anything is better than smoking.

 

[Merrick92]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24635357
The herd mentality is impressive with this community. Just like with cinnamon flavors, and ceramic wicks, and acrolein, and silica wicks, and mesh,etc..... One place posts information,and everyone gravitates towards it and goes ape shit. Almost as bad as the antz 'we just don't know what's in it, so we should ban it', or 'I hear it has the same ingredients as antifreeze'.