Chemicals linked with severe respiratory disease found in e-cigarette flavors
hsph.harvard.edu
hsph.harvard.edu
Here's the Reddit discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/comments/3vx84...
The "bad shit" list for ejuice is usually artificial sweeteners, acetoin, and diacetyl.
I think most people who have this sort of free-market disposition are moderate enough to think that labeling an arsenic apple is reasonable.
Moreover, and far more importantly, it seems evident that, once government starts making these sorts of decisions, it quickly makes them only for its own interests.
I'm not asking tricky questions here, your position is like saying the Earth is flat. I mean, due to the example we're using, apple with arsenic in them but labelled with this information, it's like a very extreme position. Normally it would be a straw man - nobody would seriously suggest that this is okay.
Comparing a reasonably widely-held, studied, and written-about economic model to the flat earth society? You give me nothing to go on here. Perhaps you're young and haven't read much yet - I don't know. I suggest a history of economics course in college.
As for your very first question: the government's interests aren't terribly hard to identify, especially in the case of the USA, where the government is a hegemonic empire. It seeks to enrich its corporate sponsors, expand its capacity to exact violence against its detractors, and find equilibrium in its body politic via panem et circenses. It's reasonably transparent I think.
As for your slippery slope bit about being able to sell unlabeled arsenic: I like what works. The current system clearly isn't working for most people for most purposes. My understanding is that drug overdoses were at record lows during the period after the Pure Food and Drug Act but before drug prohibition. I take this, and other data like it, as evidence that this configuration is a decent balance.
obviously no one wants the status quo to change to that. (not even you, even though you aren't sure.) like, literally nobody. (even people who say they do, don't actually want to have to start reading labels on their fruit to make sure they won't die.)
there's almost nothing to go on in this discussion, we're talking - only - about such an extreme viewpoint.
Anyway what interests of the "hegemonic empire" does the fact that I can eat an apple without reading its label and not die, serve? You can't say "oh that's easy - the hegemonic empire doesn't want its stormtroopers - that would be its population - to die, because they can't fight for hte hegemonic empire or pay their taxes" because if that were the case it would ALSO be in the interests of the "hegemonic empire" to ban grossly unhealthy foods so people don't die of heart disease - the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy among rich countries in part for this reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe... But they don't do that, or many other things.
there's just no answer to why my grocery store isn't allowed to sell arsenic-laced apples as long as they're labelled, except the COMPLETELY OBVIOUS one that the government does its basic job and protects people from this thing. there's just no other answer. the mental contortions you would have to go through to believe that they're "seeking to enrich their corporate sponsors" and that's why you can't sell arsenic-laced apples is just - I mean, come on.
The reason you would have to put "some thought" into answering my questoins - even though they're super simple - is the same as why a flat-earther would have to put "some thought" into answering the question of why someone can broadcat an image of a spinning, round, Earth, from space. This requires some explanation, because the idea that the Earth is actually flat is so obviously untenable.
I was on the debate team in high school, out of these two statements: "Resolved: the Earth is a flat disc, not a round sphere-like object in space" and "Resolved: it ought to be legal to sell apples that are or might be arsenic-laced and deadly to consumers as long as a label is affixed to them informing consumers of this fact" it is absolutely easier to argue the affirmative of the former. It's just sooo easy, all you have to explain is a few images from space, everything else people don't have any personal experience with. Even the bible is on your side. There are people who believe this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flat_Earth - on the other hand, everyone has purchased apples. You won't find anyone who would have been okay with them being arsenic-laced, as long as there is a label on them. It's just not something anyone can actually argue - which is why you go off on this totally irrelevant tangent about enriching corporate sponsors.
this entire thread with me discusses nothing but why the government shouldn't deregulate selling poisoned food. That's it. it's obvious. completely obvious.
Excuse me if there is some vitriol, but I'm not okay with someone arguing a position that I have to start reading labels on my fruits to make sure I don't die. It's not a position you can take. It's why you had originally gotten downvoted when you asked "in theory, why not". me dying of fruit is not a small price to pay for your right to test some alternative economic theory. you're arguing for my death. (or massive, massive personal inconvenience.)
you know, you can just admit you're wrong. Why not just reply and say: "You're right, it's obvious to me why labeling fruit shouldn't let you lace them with poison. I was really just thinking about other cases, my apologies." in other cases, sure you could be right.
Just a couple quick things and then I really have to dip from this thread, at least for now:
* You are using the word "strawman," but I don't think you actually mean strawman. I think you are trying to describe a slippery slope. Strawman is a fallacy wherein one debater misrepresents the position of another, and then uses this weaker misrepresentation as the basis for a response. In fact, it's exactly what you are doing when you say "oh that's easy - the hegemonic empire doesn't want its stormtroopers - that would be its population - to die, because they can't fight for hte hegemonic empire or pay their taxes" - this is a position I didn't take, don't hold, and which weakens your position to argue against. You are talking to a wall.
* You say:
> I'm not okay with someone arguing a position that I have to start reading labels on my fruits to make sure I don't die.
...and I'm just given pause because it's almost like you aren't living in the same world as the rest of us.
You do need to read labels. There are poisons in food. People do die from food - quick, sickening deaths like from e-coli in fast food and, in much greater numbers, slow, miserable deaths from obesity and diabecity. Do you not realize that these are the main causes of death in our society? I mean... is it possible that this just hasn't occurred to you? You made direct reference to it in your comment, but the points seems to have been lost on you.
So, on one hand, the FDA has failed to stop toxic food from becoming the biggest cause of premature death in society.
On the other hand, the FDA, along with its state counterparts, have stopped low-cost, healthy food from entering the food supply and threatening the quasi-monopolies held by a few small, giant corporate agriculture sponsors.
To pull out just one example - but you can find more every day across the country - just down the road from where I sit in Michigan: the Michigan Dept. of Agriculture actually forced a farm co-op to dump hundreds of gallons of milk and to destroy over a thousand free-range eggs because they were deemed for 'sale' instead the property of the co-op:
http://www.wnem.com/story/26116053/farmers-forced-to-dump-pr...
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here; maybe you just didn't realize these things were happening. But it's bad. The food is bad, and it's mostly various arms of the government that are making it so.
And please, bottle the acid with your stormtroopers bit. It's much simpler than that, of course: it's about money. There's no complex shroud of intent here. Huge agricultural companies pay the government to make their products the only game in town. It's really not much more complicated than that.
This is par for the course; there is no example in history of government making the food supply safer, and even less so in the center of empire. As a habit, empires push unhealthy food and drugs on their own populous and that of their colonies. This is the basic dynamic of the opium war, of alcohol prohibition, and of drug prohibition today.
At the end of the day, I prefer that it be legal for people to sell ridiculous, snake-oily products, even unto properly labeled arsenic apples, then to have to choose between subsidized poison and scarce real food.
Arsenic apples are not a threat to food security. Nobody will even try to sell them. And if they do, nobody will buy them. Hill High Dairy being shut down is a threat to food security.
These are not hypotheticals; these are the actual choices we have to make about the role, if any, for government to play in assisting adults in securing healthy food.
you've written a lot just now - but it completely moves the goalposts. You think we're discussing something more, or different, than what we're discussing. We're discussing selling arsenic-laced apples. You're discussing something different now, but here's why I said you were acting like a living, breathing, moving straw man upthread:
Let's say I were debating government regulation of food with someone, and I said: "There are people who say '"it's OK to sell an arsenic laced Apple as long as it has a warning on it.", writing "Of course I can. If it's labeled, why not? Maybe somebody wants an arsenic apple; I don't know.". I would now like to address this point...."
Then my opponent would interrupt me: "Objection! Wait! Nooooo, that is a straw man! Nobody on Earth seriously believes it's okay to sell arsenic appples as long as they're labelled. I didn't say this! Nobody said this! This is not a position anyone has. You are arguing against a straw man! You're arguing against a wall."
Yet, here we are. I quoted you stating that position. That's what we're discussing. Whether it's okay to sell arsenic-laced apples "as long as they're labelled."
--> Perhaps we're agreed that it's not okay, and that this shouldn't suddenly be legal?
You've raised interesting points about e coli, about unhealthy foods that cause a slow death. Personally, I haven't said anything in this thread about regulation and labeling of these things, except perhaps that the government isn't currently doing it. (not a normative statement.)
You gloss over this as if it weren't kind of a huge deal.
This assumption is breaking a lot of systems in society.
If you think this assumption leads to bad outcomes, pick up a tort law book and read the details of historical cases from when an 'anything goes' mentality was predominant.
I studied this to a non-trivial degree in college during undergrad, though of course not on the level of graduate economic theory or anything. My understanding is that the major markers (such as drug overdose) were at record lows following the Pure Food and Drug Act, a relatively non-intrusive measure that required labeling and some rudimentary testing and inspection, but preceding the FDA and drug prohibition and all the rest.
This seems to comport with the world I watch around me.
Am I wrong about this?
Second, the reason smoking is increasingly banned everywhere is not because we don't allow adults to make up their own mind about smoking but because of the effects on people who decide not to smoke.
I don't want to see a ban like pot or other drugs on vaping. I laugh at vapors, but as long as they are free to do so, I can sleep a little better.
I would prefer it if the companies where regulated on what chemicals they could add to the liquid.
The FDA openly proposes to regulate e-cigarettes and "certain dissolvables that are not 'smokeless tobacco'" http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ucm388395.htm
Curiously the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_tobacco_by_the_U... makes no mention of the term "drug delivery system".
We're not talking here about chemicals in general, we're talking about a specific chemical, diacetyl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacetyl). And we know long-term exposure via inhalation to that chemical can cause life-threatening respiratory conditions, such as the "popcorn lung" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchiolitis_obliterans) that workers who made microwave popcorn toppings that included diacetyl came down with from inhaling it in their workplaces.
Do you seriously think the presence in a product intended to be inhaled repetitively over long periods of such a chemical does not warrant, at minimum, some kind of warning?
> Should they ban adults from making up their own mind?
How many adults, when presented with the word "diacetyl" in tiny print on a product's label, do you think are sufficiently educated to be able to accurately judge the risks of inhaling that product?
Are we really supposed to take a "do your homework, good luck!" approach to products that, when used as the maker intends, will expose the user to significant health risks?
I want an informed, even evangelical society when it comes to comsumption. I want people to be allowed to choose how they live their life, at least privately. If you can be a functioning meth-head, do so. If you can't, die without harming others on your way out.
I know that is a harsh view, but look at the alternative: the present system. We incarcerate individuals for safely smoking a meriad of drugs in the backyard, apartment or stoop. We spend, speaking as an American, $60-80k a year to confine these people. Even if one makes the argument that drugs keep people on welfare, welfare is far cheaper and freer, in the rights sense.
So too this drug. Label it, warn, perhaps even tax, but don't let it be an excuse to prevent vaping. States, in my opinion, are itching for a reason to block this new product. Stop them now. Otherwise how can we innovate to an alternative for tabacco?
Right.... because the heaps of information that gets dumped on you whenever you receive a prescription drug or go in to surgery is oh so helpful.
You are basically advocating for an expansion of this. If a vaporize contains 100 different chemicals, and all of them come along with pages of information, the user won't be able to grok it all and realize that one of them is probably going to seriously screw them in a few years.
I don't know what you expect an informed consumer to look like, but having a person reading a booklet of medical jargon to determine health risks for each drug they take is extremely unrealistic.
So, the government is right here. We need to ban certain chemicals because there is no other way. Life is too complicated as it is.
I think in general adults should be able to make up their minds about ingesting chemicals that might hurt them. However, it makes sense to make an exception -- if the chemical has addictive properties and empirically is likely to have network effects (i.e. in practice it tends to spread through the community), it seems reasonable for the government to step in and regulate the substance in more substantial ways than enforcing disclosure. I'd argue adults don't make choices with respect to these chemicals out of their own free will, but are coerced into consuming them through biological/social rewards mechanisms, and I think it's the government's responsibility to step in.
For example, regulating psilocybin seems like an obviously bad idea (it doesn't seem to be addicting and doesn't devastate communities), where as regulating crystal meth is an obviously good idea.
I don't know where the line is (e.g. what about cocaine? it's addictive and has propensity to spread, but isn't nearly as bad as meth), but that doesn't mean there aren't obvious extremes. I also don't know what the government can do about it (making distribution illegal doesn't seem to work), but philosophically, I don't think it's unreasonable for the government to step in if it can be effective.
Does it? What result are you trying to produce by this legislation?
If you're trying to produce the result that fewer people use X harmful substance, then it absolutely does not make sense to regulate the substance itself. Evidence suggests that regulation merely makes selling the substance more profitable and buying the substance more "edgy", making the substance more dangerous. Instead, it makes sense to provide better programs for treatment and education around the substance, which results in lower usage, higher recovery rates when someone does use it, and less incentives for people to traffic the substance.
But if you're trying to produce profits for prison corporations and further militarize law enforcement, by all means, let's make all substances illegal.
As for being considerate — yes, obviously it's good to be considerate, but that's kind of a platitude until you get into the nitty-gritty details. We all do things that are inconsiderate in some ways. For example, if you eat meat in public, there are might be vegetarians around who find the sight and smell offensive, but I doubt you consider yourself inconsiderate for doing so. I'm not sure exactly where vaping falls in the "doing this in public makes you a jerk" spectrum, but I lean towards thinking it falls closer to wearing heavy perfume than to smoking (since its effects seem to be more similar to that).
I'd just like to see a requirement that all products have a label which lists every ingredient, even if that label is only available online or by mailing the manufacturer. And "natural and artificial flavors" is not an ingredient. "Meets the flammability requirements of the California Bureau of Home Furnishings" is also not an ingredient.
However, labeling doesn't really help people exposed to second-hand whatnot. The smoker/vaper(/perfume-wearer) may find the ingredients to be acceptable, but what about all the people around them? And unfortunately, smokers are not the most considerate bunch.
If every product had to disclose this, then ideally you could recursively query for every component chemical. At that point, not only would banning e-cigs be discussed but also probably many building materials and cleaning products. And we'd be able to ban on a granular level, e.g., any product emitting more than 10 ppm diacetyl.
I very much want to live in a world where the public debates issues from a position of knowledge, rather than positions of deliberate ignorance motivated by tribalistic passions. :(
What I don't want is expanded government. I am honestly tired of adults being treated as children. "Do this. Don't do that. Can you read the sign?" in the words of the song. Teach, inform, foster communication, but don't control a private life.
There has been some discussion around the safety of the heating elements themselves, specifically what happens when the metals get vaporized and enter the lungs/blood stream [0]
[0]http://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/are-e-ci...
Edit: also worth noting that cheap no-name ones are frequently soldering iron elements housed in random plastic or wood cases and have no consideration for this whatsoever.
In general its probably quite a bit safer than combusting plant material, assuming the person that made the BHO did it correctly.
Most of the usage is done with a glass bong, with the metal "nail" used as a method of pressing the wax to the heated glass.
From the perspective of your lungs it's most certainly more healthy.
There are numerous studies indicating that THC could be a neurotoxin, such as this[1] recent one (conversely there is evidence to suggest that CBD may be a neuroprotector). Vaping marijuana typically results in higher dosages of cannaboids, especially with paraphernalia such as a volcano.
A logical deduction of the two shows that THC could be extremely unhealthy if vaped. There is no evidence one way or another to suggest that CBD may or may not specifically counteract the neurotoxicity of THC, but I have myself stopped vaping sativas and only vape the cheaper stuff.
I'd love to know why this story is being pushed everywhere now - is there a bill / legislation coming up somewhere important?
The question is, how much? The lab limit of detection is often in the parts per billion or parts per trillion.
The dose makes the poison!
Hell, frying foods creates acrolein and acylamide which is toxic as hell (it alkylates glutathione, a key anti-oxidant in the body). However, you'd need to eat kilograms of fried food per day to actually reach a toxic level.
Coffee is another great example. It contains 23 known carcinogens.
From the article's abstract http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10185/
I have no idea what those numbers mean or if they're bad for you. But there they are...
I guess the question is what is the level of diacetyl in the vapor inhaled? The CDC has set a limit of 25 ppb for short term exposure.
>The per capita daily intake of diacetyl added to food, both as a component of starter distillate and as diacetyl itself , is estimated to be less than 0.3 mg.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/SC...
Any study that "accidentally" doesn't differentiate between the two very different manufacturing scenarios is suspect in my opinion, as it does very little to provide any useful information.
>The median daily exposure levels were 56 μg/day ... They were slightly lower than the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits for occupational exposure ... however, 47.3% of DA and 41.5% of AP-containing samples exposed consumers to levels higher than the safety limits.
http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/23/ntr.n...
Compared to this recent study, this shows that addition of diacetyl and in what concentration is decreasing.
Oh boy, time to crosspost for information's sake.
Even diactyl containing e-juice still contains 100x less diacetyl than traditional cigarettes. [Citation: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tox.20153/pdf[1] ] And no smoker to date has ever gotten "Popcorn Lung" (Named because it occurs years after dumping pure uncut diactyl into vats and bins when making cheapo microwave popcorn in the factories.)
And despite all that- It's still largely the other factors and chemicals and tar and actual combustion that damages your lungs when smoking is involved. Not diacetyl specifically. Even 100x the amount of diacetyl as e-juice is apparently not enough to cause the "Popcorn Lung" issue related to the compound specifically. So why would 100x less than the amount that does not cause it suddenly start to cause it? Not that it's 100 percent safe (As mentioned by a replier as well- So I have appended my post some for accuracy and fairness.) Just that it's not the immediate or unavoidable threat it's being presented as.
And in the span of 7+ years even in the heaviest vape users no one has (yet, mind. For the sake of fairness and caution.) reported any major health issues tied to vaping or the compounds contained in e-juice. If the 75ml a day heavy diactyl juice user doesn't get popcorn lung then I highly doubt popcorn lung is a problem to watch for regarding it. Also there are many many e-juices available without diactyl. So even if it was an issue you can actively avoid it. And most manufacturers have discontinued it's use or clearely state if their juices are diacetyl free so the risk factors that are purely tied to diacetyl are avoidable and preventable.
As far as being paranoid about what's put in it- This is purely my opinion but, I think that is razorblades in your kid's halloween candy or "Shadey people handing out drugs for free/Lacing your kid's flintstones vitamins with PCP" levels of unfounded overconcern. Caution is important- But so is research and fact checking.
Edit: To append this to- I am not defending the use or previous use of the substance, merely dispelling the immediate "Popcorn Lung" panic around it. I personally don't use e-juice containing it for the sake of risk reduction in general as I like to limit as many potential factors as possible in general. And there are hundreds- if not thousands of brands and types which do not contain diacetyl to choose from which I would recommend. I am also not claiming vaping is 100 percent safe- Just that this instance is an avoidable factor and has been for a while.
Personal safety and active research should always be practiced in all facets of life.
Also ridiculously cheap.
The article's opening line seems designed to demonize:
"Diacetyl, a flavoring chemical linked to cases of severe respiratory disease, was found in more than 75% of flavored electronic cigarettes and refill liquids tested by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health."
75%! Tested by Harvard! This is huge!
However, take a look at the actual study. Specifically, page 6, under Methods, e-Cigarette Selection
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/12/e...
"A convenience sample of 51 e-cigarette flavors was selected for use in this study. Electronic cigarette cartridges, liquids, and their associated devices and batteries were purchased online and in retail locations. We evaluated 51 flavors, including all available flavors from three large cigarette companies (Brands A, B, and C, with 2, 2, and 7 flavors, respectively); 5 flavors from a large independent e-cigarette company (Brand D); and 24 additional flavors from three ecigarette distributors (Brands E, F, and G, 10, 8, and 6 flavors, respectively) that we selected based on their potential appeal to children, teenagers and young adults (Table 2). In addition, we evaluated 11 e-liquid flavors that are inserted into a cartomizer (disposable cartridge and atomizer system) (Brands H and I, 6 and 5 flavors, respectively)"
To break this down a bit.. Let's start with convenience sample. A convenience sample is a non-probability sampling technique. It's made up of subjects (in this case, nicotine juice) which are easy to reach. It is _not_ a representative sample of the products offered by the entire industry. You can't make probability statements about non-probability samples. The numbers are worthless in relation to the greater whole. EG, you can't say "Diacetyl was found in more than 75% of flavored electronic cigarettes." It would be like going to a Donald Trump campaign rally to poll public opinion because it's close to your house and then reporting that "75% of Americans believe Donald Trump should be the next President of the United States".
Add a couple of words, however, and although your numbers are still worthless, you can use a technicality to slip past whatever fact-checking apparatus is in place that would call you out on a bold-faced lie and you can lend some additional credibility to your prejudicial pseudo-science. "Diacetyl was found in more than 75% of flavored electronic cigarettes tested by researchers at Harvard."
The average person is not going to consider the added qualifying statement in the proper context. Technically, it lets the reporter off the hook for generalizing because they have now (importantly) stated that the number is only in relation to what was tested. Effectively, though, it lends a big name institution and all that it represents in support of the reporter's agenda. Most people will read that sentence as "Harvard reports that 75% of flavored electronic cigarettes contain diacetyl, which causes severe respiratory disease'.
It does help the article's credibility that this 'research' was indeed performed at Harvard, was under grant from the NIH, and that the probabilistically irrelevant results were posted on a Harvard website in a fairly authoritative manner as a press-release. The writer of the article isn't credited, so this appears to come from the university itself.
But anyway, back to the numbers they listed. Their sample size, of the many thousands available, was 51. And it came from... 3 cigarette companies, 1 e-cigarette company, and 3 e-cigarette distributors. They use only seven (convenient, non-representative) sources to paint the industry as a whole.
If we ignore the blanketing insinuation of the industry as a whole, though, the number they came up with is still of very limited utility. One company contributed 2 datapoints, another contributed 10. Biased contributions make the overall '75%' figure irrelevant in describing even just those 7 companies comprising their 'research'. If a company uses diacetyl in one of their products, odds are very high that they will use it in their other products. That aside, since the selection of flavors tested are not representative of sales of individual products, there's no point in repeatedly testing the products of a single company once a positive result has been reached.
I'm very disappointed and irritated that an institution like Harvard would lend its credibility to a piece like this. It leads me to wonder whether they are acting with an ulterior motivation or simply incompetently. In the end, their intent means little, though; their words will have impact to discourage the spread of e-cigarettes as an alternative or cessation aid for traditional cigarettes. Is that a good thing? I don't know. We need better research into this youthful industry that has a significant potential health impact.
We rely on valid research by trustworthy institutions to inform our decision making process. There's an opportunity cost to choosing to perform the wrong research and to performing the right research incorrectly. While some good does come of this, in that specific companies are outed (sort of -- the paper does not list the company names) for their use of dangerous ingredients, the research does not address safety concerns around e-cigarette use in the scenario where a responsible vendor takes precautions by ensuring that known dangerous additives aren't added to their products. I know it's not very sexy to report, and might require some additional effort, but why not look at the impact of the additives that _all_ of the e-cigarette companies are using because they are assumed benign in the absence of evidence to the contrary?
The UK department of health says no, ie please switch: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...
I'll start. I guess 0.
I quit smoking 10 years ago, cold turkey. You either give a shit about your health, or you don't.
I don't care if I get down-voted, or appear negative. Sack up, quit the stupid stuff.
The real question is, which is better for you, smoking tobacco or vaporizing nicotine? Even if there are risks with vaping, I'd say they are likely far, far less than smoking.
I disagree; I don't think this is really even a question. I do not have the research on hand at the moment, so definitely check it out yourself before taking this on faith, but there's already research indicating that smoking is way worse for you than vaping. Hell, even the only chemical discussed in this latest news (diacetyl) is present in far, far greater quantities in regular cigarettes than in vaping.
The question of cigarettes vs vaping is not really even a question; the real question is the risks of vaping per se (and this is where regulation/study has not yet caught up to usage).