Jonathan Tittle
Founding Vendor
Founding Vendor
VU Vendor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Well, what do you propose? Required transparency, with lab tests?
Now call me a cynic, but I think that gets us to the exact same problem with replacement chemicals as any blacklist regulation would. Makers are going to know they will sell more if they can say "Free of W, X, Y Z"... but what about the ΦΧΨΩ they (or their flavouring suppliers) replace them with? If instead of asking for certain chemicals to be removed, we simply ask for their disclosure, then we end up at the same place. After all, why would we ask, if we weren't concerned about their presence?
I'm 100% for being transparent. I feel that honesty is the best policy, whether you want to hear it or not. Call me old fashioned. I don't feel that lab tests should be required unless a manufacturer is claiming 100% free of a single or group of chemicals. If you claim Diacetyl free, you had better have proof to show it and you had better be using testing methods that can detect small amounts. The same for any other chemical. If you're not, you have a legal obligation to remove that label and to put up a disclaimer stating that it's possible that the e-liquids you sell to the public may contain [insert chemical(s)]. Otherwise it's false advertising and you should be help to the same legal action as any other company that makes false claims.
Is the disclaimer a cop out? No, it's better than what most vendors are displaying (which is nothing at all). If you are one of the few testing, you should be PROUD to display it and those reports, if valid, should be easily accessible, not hidden deep within your site. I'd even say that having test results warrants a new section on your website labeled (something to the effect of) Lab Reports, Test Results etc.
If you don't test, having a disclaimer is legal and most lawyers will require you to display one, more so for an industry where you're inhaling any sort of product. It's common sense and IMO, not an option unless you have the means of proving otherwise. Even with test results, a disclaimer covering you in the event the lab was wrong (even though their insurance should cover that - better safe than sorry).
That said, FlavourArt and The Flavour Apprentice have lab reports, so anyone using their flavoring has NO excuse not to know if one of their flavors contains any of those chemicals. When it comes to Capella, it's widely known that they use Acetoin & Acetyl Propionyl in many of their original formulations. Their v2's, from what has been said, has Butyric Acid in place (common sense would tell someone that when one thing is replaced, another is put in it's place). Silver Cloud Estates has MSDS's that tell if these chemicals are present. The only companies that don't are those outside the US (with exception of FlavourArt and a few US companies, such as Fairies Finest) - specifically Hangsen and Inawera, and for those, it's back to the disclaimer or test out of pocket.
Having a disclaimer would be more welcomed to most than to see or hear nothing at all and we could avoid all this drama. Look at Suicide Bunny. I'm not calling them out, but if the owner had it to do all over again, I'm sure she'd of avoided this like the plague and either put up a disclaimer or tested the products in the first place so she could avoid the stress, which was probably amplified since they are a well-known vendor.
Last edited: