Eliquid approval

[ISAWHIM]

I could see this group, or a group... of any origin... as a "Watch-dog"...
(Those have a stamp, but not for approval, only to signify, "Active independent random testing.", which would confirm that they are staying within the certified limits imposed. From a group that is not affiliated or controlled by the actual company. That, a business may pay for, but requires knowledge of the certification limits. EG, testing actual "sold consumer goods", not manufactured floor-processed items.)

You see... ISO standards dictate that records are kept, problems are fixed, and formulations are within a set range.

The WHO only restricts things which implicitly cause harm, or have high potential for leading to harm, while the FDA(in the US) regulates what can and can't be within products and marketing.

There is no real group that acts as a "Watch-dog", or "Keeper". Those groups only re-test when a problem is filed, or when new certification is needed. Any country group can do that. We can do that. We should do that.

This would be like random spot-checking, beyond the governmental control. This coming in the form of demanding access to the "Claimed certification proof", warning of "Expired certifications", and testing random live samples, through an independent lab, using that as an alert for investigation, if there was an issue.

Manufacturing will usually pay for testing once, lock-in a formula that passed, and simply follow those standards until something goes wrong. (Correcting only failure to comply to the "Recipe", they detail in the original testing.) However, as the tattoo industry found-out... manufactures change things, due to cut costs, and don't always follow-up with another test. This is where groups come into play.

These individual groups become the parental figure, whistle-blower, of detected potential issues that deviate from the certified agreement/use for manufacturing. they first contact the company, and that is followed by contact to the appropriate agencies who certified them. (If correction is not made, or proof of correction can not be confirmed.)

Like a "Consumer reports", these groups also give "Home-brewers", a friendly warning, when they may be in possible violation. Completely within the rights of any citizen of any country, as long as the warning is not threatening or in the form of extortion. These "Groups", also provide those "Home-brewers", with the resources they need, to get certification. (If that is a possibility. Usually it is not, and the brewers actually need to have a larger company manufacture for them, as the required equipment is not within any affordable budget. That just makes them a recipe-maker, where the recipe does not infringe on another's copyrights, patents, or trademarks.)

Failure to comply, usually results in a visit form the FDA or WHO, in the form of a cease and desist letter, followed by a court date.

 

[Lithium1330]

I was trying to say... For the US... (WHO is not only US.) "World Health Org".

Creating an organization in the UK, for issues related to FDA and WHO, holds no water... Great, a UK company/org says it is safe, so it must be up to American standards and safe for American consumption. Nothing works that way. Just as the UK would have an issue with some American agency, like the FDA, shutting down what they believe are "Safe", or acceptable companies.

RtV is not a UK, US, China or any country based group, RtV is a group of people from all over the world with something in common: Try to keep personal vaporizers of any kind available for everyone, we are a group of consummers trying to do everything in our hands to consume nicotine in a safer way than smoking instead of sit on our hands and watch how every goverment ban this practice, no matter if it needs to be done with e-cigarettes or any other kind of devices, so please don't think for one second that we are based on any country.

 

[Kate]

You're a laugh Isawhim - so much to say with so little knowledge. Overactive imaginations rule, hey

 

[Letzin Hale]

I don't know if I should post a reply as I agree with Isawhim and his two lengthy posts have been brushed aside with a one line reply that was mildly insulting. I'm not a fan of his and have indeed disagreed recently with something he wrote, but I did it as politely as possible using what I felt were reason and logic.
I think this idea of RtV approval is a waste of time. The only people who are going to be bothered whether their liquid carries the RtV seal of approval are the few that subscribe to the organisation. If liquids become a huge seller then they will be officially regulated by bodies that already do that day in day out. Trading Standards have already flexed their muscles in the UK by insisting on CHIP compliant, child-resistant packaging for liquids and carts, but how many sellers are flouting this law and does anybody care - would anybody stop buying from them if they knew?
So, how many sellers reading this will hold their hands up and admit that they supply carts or liquid in packaging that is not CHIP compliant or child-resistant?
Will any sellers found to be in breach of this UK law be outed on this forum?
TW and Intellicig are two that I know of who have led the way with regard to safe packaging and who have both made public test reports with a list of ingredients. Would they have to pay yet another test fee to RtV to have any credibility? I don't think so, their businesses are bigger than RtV and more popular so why would they bother?
SMOKING KILLS emblazoned across cigarette packets doesn't stop millions of people from using them so what difference would a RtV logo make?
My honest opinion is that this a small elitist organisation with a misguided ambition, a naive concept and zero credibility in the real world. I don't intend any offence but I say it as I see it.
Alan.

 

[Kate]

Thanks for your analysis Alan.

I couldn't be bothered to deal with all the wrong assumptions Isawhim made and am not really interested in empire building or corruption theories.

Intellicigs lab report is pretty useless except to say that acrolein was not found. The Wicked one is out of date and doesn't include a toxicology assessment.

If you're happy to keep the status quo then that's fine but some of us want more checks, independently carried out and publicly available.

 

[Kate]

Bump.

Anyone got any ideas on what a consumer group can realisticly accomplish regarding quality of eliquid?

Ingredient analysis, toxicology report and risk assessment from an independent lab plus effective and 'safe' packaging. Is that enough, is there anything else you'd like to look into?

 

[Finster]

I think for now group stamp of approval would help get the ball rolling I know that I would take it into consideration it was stated earlier that this groups authority would not be recognized that may be true but us as consumers will be recognized I'm a firm believer in I tell 10 people they tell 10 people so on and so on so when business drys up for the suppliers that don't do the right thing they will come around like it or not. I don't fell like tracking back to see who said it but it was said that should ecigs be held to a higher standard then regular cigs .... hell yeah why not this is the start of this industry and we can demand not only a healthier alternative to smoking but who know maybe a healthy one. Keep on Vaping

 

[ApOsTle51]

If RtV is testing the Liquid for safety how are they going to ensure that each subsequent batch from a previously approved manufacturer is also going to meet the guidelines laid out ?

Quality and safety can vary greatly from batch to batch . Is RtV going to test every batch from the manufacturer ?

sounds like it could get rather expensive.

 

[Kate]

I don't know Apo, batch testing sounds more like something statutory checks or internal quality control could deal with. I don't know how realistic it is to expect a quality mark scheme to cover that.

As I said before I don't in any way think this is a replacement for proper controls by authorities. The problem is the lack of regulation at the moment.

 

[ApOsTle51]

I don't mean to sound like an ar5e Kate , but i'm struggling to find the point of it..

UK Suppliers are starting to be pressured By TS for Chip compliance , so the packaging issues are being sorted out.

Safety testing of Liquid to a standard is cost prohibitive.

what else is there ? Marketing Ethics ? I dunno...

 

[Kate]

Yeah, actually I'm bored with this now Apo, I'm not going to bother with it anymore. If anyone else thinks it's worth following up I'm happy to support you.

 

[Finster]

yeah hello

 

[Kate]

Sorry Finster, I didn't mean to ignore you.

If you're interested in finding out more about testing I've been in touch with a lab and have a very broad idea from them about costs and possibilities. Eliquid Tests - what are we looking for?

It's obviously not cost prohibitive or Wicked and Gamucci wouldn't have had their tests done.

Packaging only seems to be getting sorted in the UK, nobody else is bothering by the look of things.

 

[ApOsTle51]

Kate , apologies if I've touched a nerve I'm just throwing things around here.

Proper lab testing may not be cost prohibitive for one supplier to test but when you gotta test several suppliers e-liquid several times , I would say that totals alot of money from one source.

RtV may have been a good incentive a year ago but things are moving now both U.K. and U.S. , so I can't see where the benefit lies.

If you put an Idea out there that is going to Influence or affect Consumers , expect questions to be asked. The ECA found that out.

 

[Kate]

There's nothing wrong with your questions Apo, you've got good points.

I'm not being paid for this and am not prepared to set myself up against any destructive ego that passes by. It wasn't you that made me decide that this is too much of an uphill struggle for me.

I don't necessarily agree that there is no need or that we have to deal with individual suppliers - the main manufacturers are in China and have so far been happy to try to prove their eliquid is safe with lab tests. Not independent ones unfortunately and not publicly available.

 

[StratOvation]

Kate,

I see your involvement on this issue as yet another in your endless and persistant quest to protect the well being of a community that you've become so fond of. I applaud your tireless dedication and devotion, not to mention the level of passion applied in your pursuit of knowledge.

Personally, I hold you as a role model....gives me something to aspire to.

However, On this particular topic... I have to say that in my opnion...

The hurdles would be massive, requiring 1. An army of people who possess a similar level of passion and dedication as you. 2. Vasts amount of financial investment. 3. Years of time to properly develop a meaningful structure and strategy.
And if sucessfull... What would be the realized product of all the time, effort and expense? A simple consumer guide to responsible e-liquid manufacturers published after the US, UK and other nations have already formulated an official stance on the subject?

IMHO, I doubt the goals listed can be realistically achieved at this point in the game... If the manufacturers haven't voluntarily stepped up to the plate and ensured a cGMP or ISO type of operating model at this point, they are not likely to do so anytime in the immeadiate future, simply to gain the blessing of an independant review board.

Not trying to be a killjoy...just realistic.

Mike

 

[Kate]

Hi Mike. I don't really know how practical this would be. I guess if someone could be bothered to link with a manufacturer like Dekang the process and funding could be ironed out pretty quickly. If the rumours are true and Dekang produce 90% of our eliquid then that would have a dramatic international effect.

I don't care enough to put much effort into this really, my interests lie in working collectively but very few of us seem prepared to or know how to do that. (I won't get started on divide and rule politics, hierarchies and capitalism. I'm alright Jack, pull up the ladder ...).

 

[Lithium1330]

The biggest problem of all this mess is where to find people willing to put efford on get things done, this discussion is important because we can see what can be done and what not, the problem is with people thinking on RtV as some kind of elitist organization when they don't know anything about RtV.

If conduct tests by RtV is not realistic, then we can do other things, like ask (perhaps we have the right to DEMAND) the manufacturers to conduct the apropiated tests in the apropiated labs and make the findings public, we as consumers can push things forward, without us there is not any industry, hence no money, but the BIG problem is that a very little amount of people are willing to get involved and when someone trys to organize something some people are questioning every single detail to death and not in a positive way but with discalifications based on ignorance.

We can be doing a lot of things to keep of practice alive AND SAFE!, but instead of it, the vast majority is just sitting on their hands watching the train pass, I really hope that you all never get hitted by a ban, then you will see all the things you could do and you didn't.

 

[StratOvation]

Lithium,

I do agree that something needs to be done...Some of the questions are... By who? What could/should be done? and How to do it?

I will attempt to reiterate my opinion.... IMHO, Its is unrealistic, at this point to acheive the goals mentioned in a timely and responsible manner.

Frankly, My gut feeling is that we are all so hungry for some real scientific data, which wil unequivocally demononstrate to us (and the various governing agencies) the safety of these products and the accuracy of the claims made by Manufacturers/Distributors, That many of the more passionate members find themselves tiring of the seemingly endless wait. They feel a desperate need to take some sort of action that will incite, encourage or force the manufacturers to provide this precious information.

I believe that Kate is a prime example of one of these Passionate members. Where she gains alot of respect in my book is... She is capable of stepping back a bit and pausing, in an attempt to develop a sensible and realistic plan which is likely to ensure whatever actions she takes or efforts she expends will yield a valuable result. VS. Many who are just so sick of waiting, watching and searching and they want/need to do Something! Anything! "Aim me at a target, any target! and let me go" type of mentality, which is likely to result in a haphazard flurry of activity that accomplishes nothing more than expending a large amount of time, energy and resources that may well be applied somewhere more usefull.

I certainly dont have the answers. I wish I did.

What I do know is... No scientific study ever conducted (in the past or future) of any e-liquid will ever be the "Holy Graille" that many are seeking.
There are simply to many variables in play which will always beg more questions. "XYZ-Juice, 24mg., Carmel flavor, manufactured on 01-01-09 has passed a thorough qualataive and quantatative analysis by an independant and reputable lab and is proven to be completely safe!" Simply dont cut it as a definative indicator re. a manufacturers full line of product... with me or any regulatory health agency for that matter.

Far as I know... None of the e-juice manufacturers, foriegn or domestic, are currently capable of displaying a "Documented, controlled and repeatable manufacturing process" similar to a cGMP based facility, which would help ensure the above mentioned test results are, in fact, a definitive indicator of XYZ's capability to manufacture thier e-juice safely. However, without regular oversight from an independant auditor, there is no assurances that XYZ will continue (on a day to day, batch to batch basis) to exercise their capability to generate safe e-juice.

To clarify, I certainly do NOT view Kate or RTV as taking an elitest stance or approach... Rather, as I mentioned above, IMO, they are trying to generate some sort of reasonable method of ensuring we all have a safe reliable source for these products. I applaud their honest persistance. It just appears to me the resources required would not yield a timely, valuable result.

Sorry for the long post,

Mike

 

[Kate]

Thanks Lithium and Mike, both good posts.

Lets see if we can move this discussion on a bit now.

Regarding eliquid quality and what we as consumers can do.

Some people think that a consumer led quality assurance scheme is better than nothing and worth working towards.

Some people don't think that's practical - and their concerns certainly are valid and should be discussed.

What can we realisticly do - if anything - to get safety assessed and tested eliquid?

So, Mike's questions are:

What should be done?

Who should do it?

How should it be done?

This is just a talking shop folks, don't get all wound up. Don't forget either that sometimes out of idle talk actions can emerge.

Collaboration is our best weapon in my view, let's try and do something constructive.