This is what I've been talking about for a year now

[DaDuke]

One thing i'm curious about. I've read the claims that "while all the ingredients that go into ecigs are commonly used and approved for human consumption they havent been tested in this manner". That really seems a stretch to me. Nicotine inhalers are not new and PG has been inhaled for decades. There should be plenty of existing data on these two ingredients used in this manner.

That leaves food flavoring and maybe VG. Not sure if VG has been commonly used as an alternative to pg in foggers but if it has then eliminate VG as an unknown. I would think that some studies would've been conducted on the safety of aerosolized food flavoring since it's used in so many products for so long. If these ingredients are generally safe for inhaling, then lets move on to reasonable measures to ensure that is all that gets into the juice.

I've read (althouth i don't know how factual it is) that pg is anti bacterial and i would think that nicotine would at least be inhospitable to bacteria. Seems like it would be a fairly easy testing procedure to confirm if eliquid actually has a very low chance of allowing bacteria to grow within it. If that is the case, then the risk of cross contamination would be negligible and automatically reduce the level of safety precautions required for manufacturing. How hard could this be? A lot of samples attempting to culture the most common and dangerous bacteria. Don't need to test for bacteria that has a ridiculously low chance of even being encountered and shouldn't require 5+ years of testing.

Salmonella is a high risk bacteria yet they don't require all eggs or packaged chicken to be irradiated (a safe effective method of sterilization) prior to sale. So the claims that eliquid is dangerous unless prepared in a nasa grade clean room in the vacuum of space by genetically engineered clones... while ignoring a fairly easy fix for the high risk threat of Salmonella poisoning (irradiating) is imo ridiculous. I agree anything produced for consumption should be regulated and inspected but the health dept should be able to handle that quite nicely while not driving the cost of eliquid through the roof.

 

[firhill]

........ I will, however, no longer sit here and let CASAA and their "unbiased" opinions and trite propaganda take over this thread...........Again, anyone who wants to speak with me can contact me through PM. Mods please close this thread.....Also please delete any further threads from CASAA members that may make it here before the thread is closed , they've certainly have had their say and have their OWN personal subforum to aire their views.

It's your prerogative whether you wanna take your ball and go home but don't be asking the mods to close down a thread because every response doesn't agree with your contentions.
They didn't close the thread down the last time you said you were leaving and they shouldn't this time, just because you asked.

From my experience, that's the approach of someone who has run out of responses or just come to the realisation that maybe some points they made weren't that valid. If that's the case, just admit it, move on and continue debating. If not, post away.

Lotsa good info/viewpoints here (with or without your input) and I'm sure there's lots more of them to come.

 

[rothenbj]

It's a shame that we can't seem to understand each other on this topic. I can fully appreciate Markarich's point of view having spent 18 years in that "space" (I always hated that expression, like everyone was spaced out and maybe it's true). The problem I see is that the scientific community wants regulation to a drug standard and the consumer wants regulation to a consumer standard.

This is a product that the courts will decide where it fits, but the the FDA is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. As has been mentioned, the US doesn't really have a good fit for this product from a practical point of view. The FDA talks about regulation, but their definition of regulation is as a drug and drug device meaning millions and years and banning until approved. The only way I can visualize that happening is to turn it over to the Pharma industry and we're pretty sure where that will lead.

The other is for the FDA to concede that it is a tobacco product and regulate it as such. It then should be considered as part of the reduced harm mandate that they've been given in last year's legislation. This would allow for regulation and oversight today, while working on an overall plan for the future. The industry must work to standards and spend money for research. I found it curious that the FDA attacked one of the more progressive companies in this young industry. A company that thought they were working with the government. That should be interesting to see what develops, but a different topic.

I forget who said this earlier, I think Mark, that E Cigs must be judged as safe compared to doing nothing, rather than against cigarettes. I find that ironic. We have cigarettes and despite all the sales pitch about children, this product is used almost exclusively by smokers and ex-smokers.

We know the short term health risks of vaping, six or seven years globally, two or three years here. We know the short therm health risks of smoking (pretty much the same as the FDA identified), but there is a question about the long term and that won't be known for years. Then again, we really don't know what the long term risks to smoking are today, do we?

What I'm getting to is FSC/RIP cigarettes. Basically everyone smoking today is smoking an untested variation to traditional cigarettes. Here's what Wikipedia says about them.


"Response from consumers

Some consumers in the United States claim they have found a noticeable difference in the taste of FSC cigarettes from non-FSC cigarettes, comparing it to a copper or metallic taste. Other symptoms reported include an itchy rash, (allergic reaction), severe headache, vomiting, ........, mouth sores, and nose bleeds. There has been a rise in people rolling their own cigarettes instead of continuing to smoke FSC and there have also been petitions regarding FSC. One current petition has been signed by over 27,000 people that attest to the negatives of FSC cigarettes."

"Many materials can be used to make the bands in the paper, including cellulosic or other polymeric materials. Different companies use different materials (including thicker bands of paper) for the ‘speed bumps’ in order to comply with regulations. Most commercial cigarette papers in fact use cellulosic and alginate bands; however many patents have been registered in the literature in relation to materials that could be used to make the bands, including EVA polymer ethylene vinyl acetate. When burned, the polymer of EVA becomes unstable, and the health risks of inhalation are not known. EVA and PVA polyvinyl acetate polymer adhesives have been used by the tobacco industry for many years, and are the industry standards.

A similar quantity of PVA polymer is required to glue the paper seam in a fire safe cigarette as in a standard cigarette.

EVA polymer must not be confused with the EVA monomer, which is a reactive species with some toxic properties."

Fire safe cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition to the symptoms mentioned here, I personally had two, wheezing and a noticeable increase in coughing when FSC was mandated in 2009 in Pennsylvania. For a period of time, I was able to buy non-FSC cigarettes at my home in Virginia, but they were required by 2010 and started showing up earlier than that.

The coughing and wheezing subsided when I was able to use non-FSC, but came right back when I had no option, one of the reasons I was willing to give E cigs a chance. Within two weeks the coughing became very infrequent and the wheeze when away.

"As with all chemical substances, the health effects associated with exposure to vinyl acetate depend on the exposure level and duration. Vinyl acetate is not considered to be highly toxic. In rats, the median lethal dose (LD50) by the oral route is 2,920 mg/kg and the inhalation four-hour lethal concentration is 4,000 ppm. Vinyl acetate can penetrate the skin, but does not do so readily; it is considered to be moderately toxic by skin absorption in rabbits with a dermal LD50 of 2,335 mg/kg. If vinyl acetate contacts the eyes, it may cause severe irritation, including corneal burns, redness and swelling. Vinyl acetate vapors have been reported to be irritating to the eyes at 21 ppm but not at 10 ppm. The odor detection threshold is reported to be about 0.5 ppm.

Repeat dose, subchronic studies in animals have documented irritation to the nose, throat and respiratory system. The exposure concentrations in repeat dose studies associated with no adverse effects were 50 ppm in mice and 200 ppm in rats. Acute high level exposure in animals has been shown to result in pulmonary edema.

Laboratory animal studies have found that long-term exposure to vinyl acetate can cause a carcinogenic response. Tumors observed in these studies occurred only at vinyl acetate concentrations well above recommended exposure levels. Also, tumors arose in animal tissues that were directly in contact with vinyl acetate (i.e., the nose and upper respiratory tract if inhaled or in the mouth, esophagus and stomach if ingested). Through mechanistic research, tumor development is believed to arise following the metabolism of vinyl acetate by enzymes (carboxylesterases) normally found in tissues of the respiratory tract or upper digestive tract first contacted by vinyl acetate. These enzymes convert vinyl acetate to acetic acid and acetaldehyde. At a sufficiently high inhaled or ingested vinyl acetate concentration, the amounts of acetaldehyde and acetic acid can directly produce genetic mutation in respiratory or digestive tract tissues in animals and trigger the cellular proliferation necessary for tumor development. The tumors observed in laboratory animals at very high exposure concentrations for their lifetimes are therefore not considered to be of relevance to humans exposed to low concentrations under typical use conditions. " Vinyl Acetate Council - Health and Environment

Now there have been a lot of reported adverse events since FSC became the norm, but nobody seems to be concerned with the smokers health in this instance, only the potential (seriously questioned) of stopping fires. Nobody is questioning the long term health risks and banning this change and demanding long term studies to insure that they are as safe as traditional cigarettes. Of course it fits into the general theme, "There is no safe cigarette". Make the cigarette less safe and the argument for quitting becomes stronger over time. I know it didn't take me long to look for an alternative when my symptoms started showing up, maybe that's a plan.

 

[pianoguy]

Excellent point about the FSC's - my experience was exactly the same. Quite a double-standard, indeed.

 

[Vocalek]

Why would Sottera/NJOY settle/agree not to sell to minors and to discontinue advertising smoking cessation claims/health claims with the CA AG office(and pay $85,000 in fines) if they had not previously been caught doing so??

Because their lawyer told them how much it would cost to actually take the case through court. It's very easy to agree to do what you have already been doing all along and much less expensive to settle out of court. And if you read the actual settlement agreement, you will see that Sottera/NJOY makes no admissions of guilt.

NJOY was not caught doing anything. "Governor Moonbeam" got a letter from ASH making all the accusations, and he saw a P.R. opportunity. He ran with the information without bothering to investigate whether any of it was true! In collecting his $85,000 AG Brown got away with legalized extortion.

The warning labels that I quoted? Those are from a package of NJOY NPRO cartridges that I bought when the products first came out in late 2008.

And I'm sure there are forum members that can attest to seeing Njoy salesmen at kiosks making overt health claims at some point in the past 3 years(whether they want to admit to it or not).

I'm sure there aren't. NJOY doesn't have kiosks. The marketing takes place over the internet (do check out the NJOY web site) and the company had distributor arrangements with retail outlets such as the Pilot Travel Centers. Retail store clerks have a tendency to just hand the customer what the customer asks for, not try to pitch any particular product on the shelves. NJOY Products were also marketed via Costco.com.

You are missing an important point here. The FDA is hell-bent on getting all these products off the market. There was no way any company could have won the heart of FDA to market their product as a smoking alternative. If they don't see any health claims, they make them up! The only way into the heart of FDA is via an NDA.

 

[DaDuke]

The only way into the heart of FDA is via an NDA.

Or through the ribcage! Lol, sorry, just had to throw that out there

 

[markarich159]

I work in the Pharma space.

PHARMA WORKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ERRRR, ERRRRRR, ERRRRRRR, ERRRRRR!!!!!!! WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, 4,8,15,16,23,42; 4,8,15,16,23,42; 4,8,15,16,23,42:::::
We've GOT an Enemy here DO NOT LISTEN; We've got an enemy here DO NOT LISTEN;
BIASED:BIASED:BIASED:BIASED:BIASED:BIASED
NOT OUR FRIEND;NOT OUR FRIEND;NOT OUR FRIEND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' QUALITY CONTROL; WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' QUALITY CONTROL!!!!

I'm sorry Dawolf, I just couldn't resist, obviously I'm being sarcastic. But I saw one final chance to show all how I feel and how my opinons have been treated (by the so-called, self proclaimed guardians of vape) simply because of my professional oath and the occupation I happen to have chosen to devote my life.
To all; have a happy , healthy & long life - and happy vaping. PM me if you wish.

 

[AngusATAT]

This thread is being closed at the request of the OP.