Chemical flavorings found in e-cigarettes linked to lung disease

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/12/popcorn-lung-seen-in-e-cigarette-smokers/?

by kevindeasis • 11 years ago

119 160 11 years ago

news.harvard.edu

binarymax2• 11 years ago

Nicotine users just can't catch a break.

Based on the real subject of the article, diacetyl, I'm surprised the chemical has not been regulated by now.

Here is the federal register snippet [0]

§184.1278 Diacetyl.

(a) Diacetyl (C4H6O2, CAS Reg. No. 431-03-8) is a clear yellow to yellowish green liquid with a strong pungent odor. It is also known as 2,3-butanedione and is chemically synthesized from methyl ethyl ketone. It is miscible in water, glycerin, alcohol, and ether, and in very dilute water solution, it has a typical buttery odor and flavor.

(b) The ingredient meets the specifications of the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d Ed. (1981), p. 368, which is incorporated by reference. Copies are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_reg....

(c) In accordance with §184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice. The affirmation of this ingredient as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as a direct human food ingredient is based upon the following current good manufacturing practice conditions of use:

(1) The ingredient is used as a flavoring agent and adjuvant as defined in §170.3(o)(12) of this chapter.

(2) The ingredient is used in food at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice.

(d) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.

[48 FR 51907, Nov. 15, 1983]

[0] http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=21:3.0.1....

mrob2• 11 years ago

It's not nicotine users specifically at risk here, because unflavored nicotine liquids are available, as well as flavored zero-nicotine liquids. Flavorings seem like an unnecessary risk to me -- the dangers of diacetyl have been known for several years so it doesn't surprise me that other flavorings can also damage lungs. None of them have anywhere close to the level of safety research as the nicotine or the carrier liquids (propylene glycol or glycerol). Even before this research the risk:benefit ratio for flavorings looked very dubious.

notlisted7• 11 years ago

I'm not clear if you are being sarcastic, but note the GRAS (generally recognized as safe), for ingestion at least...

mrob2• 11 years ago

If you ever stand near a typical vaper, you'll notice they use very high concentrations of flavoring. Any food with this much flavoring would probably be considered inedible. I think very strong flavoring is popular to overcome desensitization caused by frequent use.

binarymax2• 11 years ago

I am not being sarcastic. That entry hasn't changed in the FR since 1983. "Generally recognized as safe" is out of date and the chemical needs another regulatory review and update.

daveguy2• 11 years ago

GRAS is a food additive designation and does apply ONLY to ingestion. The pharmacology of an inhaled substance can be completely different than that of an ingested one. The same goes for intravenous, topical and subcutaneous as well. Just because something is safe for one method of delivery does not mean it is safe for another. GRAS is applicable and continually updated regarding ingestion, but it does NOT apply to inhalation.

Edit: side note, the database of additives approved in pharmaceutical products is specific to route of delivery and ,for the US, can be found in the FDA's inactive ingredients database: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/iig/index.Cfm

Lawtonfogle3• 11 years ago

If it is added to a food that is heated, isn't there still a risk for inhalation?

Or even if the food isn't heated, a flavor that isn't one of the main (sweet, salty, bitter, sour, umami) isn't actually a flavor. It is a smell. So the only reason it is added to foods is to be inhaled.

notlisted7• 11 years ago

In some e-cigarette flavors. Look at the actual study [1] and you'll see the dangers are mainly limited to some buttery/fruity/nutty flavors. The fact that Diacetyl occurs at much higher concentrations in regular cigarettes goes unmentioned. 'Popcorn lung' disease occurred with workers who were exposed to enough Diacetyl vapor in a day as an e-cig 'smoker' would be in a month. Finally, I'll leave the conclusion of the UK Department of Health [2] : "E-cigarettes around 95% less harmful than tobacco estimates landmark review"

As indicated in the second link, the scaremongering of studies such as this one mislead smokers into thinking that e-cigarettes are about as dangerous as regular ones. The dangers are not equivalent, by a long shot. Every smoker that switches to e-cigs, as I did 3 years ago after a 20 year habit and three failed attempts to quit, is much better off. Haven't smoked a 'real' one since. I know at least 50 people with the same experience (anecdotal, I know, but still...).

[1] http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/12/e... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...

joosters2• 11 years ago

The study does show that some tobacco flavors (which are often described as unflavored) contained diacetyl too, albeit in smaller concentrations.

notlisted7• 11 years ago

Noted. Added the word "mainly". I'm not claiming that Diacetyl should be in e-cigarettes to begin with, but that the headline and recommendations of the need to be viewed with additional scrutiny and in context. As with all unhealthy components dosage matters and risks should be presented accordingly.

PS There have been other studies into Diacetyl in e-cigarettes in the past. This sourced article contains a few more pointers http://blog.mtbakervapor.com/the-truth-about-diacetyl/

Derpdiherp• 11 years ago

Entirely correct and well backed up with sources. Myself I mix my own e-liquid, whilst not knowing exactly what goes into them due to using flavourings made by flavour companies, I have a better idea than some.

To avoid diacetyl just do not use any eliquid that has a butter like flavour (custards and creams are the usual candidates). When you pick up on what diacetyl smells like you can smell it from a mile off.

Unfortunately though - flavour companies started advertising "diacetyl free" on flavours while replacing it with chemicals which are just as bad - Acetyl Propynol and in some cases Butyric Acid.

Anyone who is interested in this I recommend reading Dr Farsalinos studies on the subject.

ptaipale7• 11 years ago

Indeed. It seems that two very different sects combine forces in the battle against e-cigs: traditional tobacco industry, who sees e-cig transition as a threat, and health authorities and activists, who see second-best (e-cigs) as the greatest threat to what they think is best (total abstinence).

This unholy alliance seems unfortunately quite strong. I'm not a smoker, but I'm all for every smoker around me converting to e-cigs, and even at the "risk" of having some non-smokers start e-cigs it's really a no contest: if some e-cig flavourings are unhealthy, investigate and regulate those, but please please do not stop the transition which is great for absolutely everybody (except traditional tobacco providers).

matthewcford• 11 years ago

I started using e-cigs without much thought on quitting entirely, however after about 7 months, I had even stopped vaping, haven't felt the need to smoke in over a year.

Granted I did slowly reduce the nicotine content over time.

Shivetya2• 11 years ago

the tobacco industry only persist because government wants it too, it serves two benefits. Increased revenue from taxation and cynically because many users will pass away before their medical expenses get too high.

Inhaling any burning substance cannot be good for you and there was really no standard on e-cigs to at least let people use them with some assurance

jwr2• 11 years ago

The transition is indeed an improvement, but there is a dangerous myth spreading: that e-cigarette smoke (as exhaled by smokers) is "completely harmless". I've heard people describe it as "just water vapor".

Well it isn't harmless, and transitioning from a traditional tobacco cigarette to an e-cigarette doesn't mean you can just start smoking everywhere.

Symbiote• 11 years ago

health authorities and activists, who see second-best (e-cigs) as the greatest threat to what they think is best (total abstinence).

The comment you're replying to cites the British Department of Health, who's final quote is

All of our local NHS Stop Smoking Services now proactively welcome anyone who wants to use these devices as part of their quit attempt and increase their chance of success

From the middle "Despite this trend all current evidence finds that e-cigarettes carry a fraction of the risk of smoking.".

That's hardly a battle against e-cigarettes.

logfromblammo• 11 years ago

I think the scaremongering is more to keep non-smokers from trying vaporizers.

If everyone who currently smokes traditional burnt-tobacco cigarettes switched to nicotine vaporizers tomorrow, the public health windfall over the next 2 to 30 years would be staggeringly huge. Cancer rates, particularly for lung cancers, would drop off a cliff.

But since burnt-tobacco smoking has already been on the decline for a while, those who monitor and care about such things are concerned that vaporizers are not perceived as dangerous enough to keep that trend line going all the way to zero.

The best course, really, would to refrain from prevarication or exaggeration with respect to the vaporizers, and keep up the pressure on burnt-tobacco cigarettes, as the health-destroying menaces that they are.

If you smoke, switch now. Statistically speaking, you will live longer. Use whatever vaporizer flavors it takes to bury your desire to touch flame to paper. It will likely be easier for you to switch flavors later, if any of them turn out to be significantly more damaging than the others.

Amezarak2• 11 years ago

Traditional tobacco providers actually dominate e-cig market share in the US under different brand names.

The most popular e cig brands blu and vise, are owned by Reynolds tobacco and imperial tobacco. Markten is owned by Altria, aka Philip Morris.

If anything I'd be more skeptical of pro ecig articles given big tobaccos involvement.

http://www.cspnet.com/category-news/tobacco/articles/nielsen...

asift• 11 years ago

This unholy alliance

Classic "Bootleggers and Baptists"

LordKano3• 11 years ago

I think you have missed a third party.

Government taxing authorities.

Despite the fact that they condemn the dangers of tobacco smoking, they also want the tax revenue and e-cigs don't provide that.

Big tobacco will still make money from e-cigs because tobacco is needed to get the nicotine for the liquid.

The people who just enjoy sticking it to smokers are upset and the governments that want the tax revenue are upset.

tripzilch11• 11 years ago

I'm not a smoker, but I'm all for every smoker around me converting to e-cigs, and even at the "risk" of having some non-smokers start e-cigs it's really a no contest: if some e-cig flavourings are unhealthy, investigate and regulate those, but please please do not stop the transition which is great for absolutely everybody.

You forgot one group, although my guess is that if it's a significant number (I just have anecdata), we'll hear about it soon enough. With all these parties holding interest, they'll be up to their noses in statistics.

It's the group of smokers that are trying to make a healthy life-decision, trying to quit their addiction[0], to quit smoking, but relapse because obviously electronic cigarettes keep both the nicotine addiction and the habit going.

None of the people I know who tried to switch to e-cigs (for health, or any reasons actually) did not relapse to regular cigarettes. Starts with just one, for the flavour (because it does taste better, really does) and after a few weeks you'll never see the e-cig again. I'll ask around to see if any of them still even use the e-cig at all, maybe at home, but I kind of doubt it.

Source: Am smoker and therefore hang out with other smokers outside a lot of the time. I can think of 4 or 5 people I know for which the above story holds, and truly not anybody that permanently switched to e-cigs, or went from e-cigs to full quit.

Not even for half a year or so--which I would otherwise (without e-cigs) consider having "quit" to the extent that keeping it up after that is much more likely.

So among my peers, people "switching" to e-cigs, can basically expect less than half a year of clean lungs before they relapse. Any health benefits of that short period goes up in smoke.

That's what I don't like about e-cigs, it's like twitter-activism, it wastes people's will on something they think is helping, but really just lulls them into a false sense of effort.

Another piece of anecdata: I know a lot more (than 4 or 5) people that actually managed to quit smoking. Now some of them didn't get addicted "real bad" (some people are just less sensitive to addiction), but some of them did, even relapsed some times, but keep on battling. Especially that last group, if they had switched to e-cigs instead, would be back inhaling burned leaves in no time.

But I don't know how significant these experiences are. Maybe e-cigs will help further the social stigma of smoking, the unusualness of it, therefore in the end creating and cultivating an environment in which smokers can more easily kick their habit. But a method to quit smoking, it is not. Especially I have personally, not seen any heavy smoker / addict get any expected health benefits from them.

So if e-cigs are good, they're only for "the greater good", I would never ever recommend a smoker that wants to "switch" to e-cigs for their health. "Just quit", I will tell them, e-cigs are just a temporary stop-gap to feel like you're "doing something good", while in the mean-time keeping your actual addiction alive and kicking. Even trying quitting for real and failing, seems IMO better than that (at least you'll gain experience in battling your willpower).

[0] which is hard, and I'll just say that if you haven't experienced such addiction (and even many smokers and ex-smokers have not), you probably underestimate how it can grind will to dust

HandMeAn8th• 11 years ago

Keep telling yourself that... Just because you were able to quit smoking after 20 years, doesn't mean "The dangers are not equivalent, by a long shot". It's amazing to me the kind of mental hoops a person will jump through to validate their behavior.

DanBC3• 11 years ago

DO you have any credible cites to show that vaping e-cigs is anywhere near as harmful as smoking tobacco?

arbitrage• 11 years ago

No, that's a false equivocation.

It's not the fact that they were able to quit that makes the dangers not equivalent, it's the growing amount of unbiased research that shows that.

Sane health care providers and policy experts tend to agree, as well, that harm-reduction is a much more attainable goal. Full on abstinence is routinely shown to be an untenable goal.

notlisted7• 11 years ago

Don't trust me. Trust link #2 (UK government research, Aug 2015, Public Health England, similar to US department of health). Repeated here for your convenience https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...

You can also rely a little bit on common sense: 'analog' cigarettes have tar and everything that results from combustion of tobacco and whatever it's "laced" with. Not the case with e-cigs. Not saying it's safe, but safer.

PS If you knew me without nicotine, you'd tell me to get back on it, like my wife did. :-)

DanBC3• 11 years ago

There's a difference between previous smokers switching to e-cigs and non-smoking children starting e-cigs, and these "scare mongering" articles are an attempt to provide information so we know how e-cigs should be regulated.

TeMPOraL17• 11 years ago

these "scare mongering" articles are an attempt to provide information

There are a very poor attempt, and that is a very charitable interpretation. Instead of providing information, they scare people by stating that e-cigs increase chance of cancer by nonzero amount while failing to mention that the amount is both not very significant[0] and extremely smaller than what you get from normal cigarettes.

[0] - that's the usual problem with "X causes cancer" articles in popular media.

Lawtonfogle3• 11 years ago

You also have to account for non-smoking children who would've switched to cigarettes but switched to e-cigs instead.

An interesting question is if e-cigs cause N children to use them who wouldn't have otherwise, but also means that M children who would used cigarettes instead use e-cigs, what is the function to determine if it is considered a net positive?

metalliqaz2• 11 years ago

Scaremongering by who? The tobacco industry? I've not (yet) seen any evidence that they are meddling with the reporting. Who else would benefit from discouraging e-cigs?

TeMPOraL17• 11 years ago

The media. They may not have anything against e-cig industry itself, but they benefit hugely from writing scary stories about it - just like about everything else. Just look what happens whenever there's a study that sorta, kinda, maybe links X to cancer under specific circumstances. You have "X causes cancer!" headlines all week long, until your own grandma tells you to stop using X (where X is coffee, artificial sweeteners, red meat, wine, or generally just about anything).

MCRed5• 11 years ago

It's worth noting that Diactyl is seen in the e-cig community as bad for glass atomizers and so there is significant market pressure not to use flavorings that use it. (And warnings about flavorings that do.)

I've already seen several flavorings be introduced in Diactyl free versions from The Flavor Apprentice, for instance.

The industry is clearly concerned about these materials and working on replacements: http://shop.perfumersapprentice.com/flavorsworkshop/custard....

Laaw• 11 years ago

Cigarettes are not your other option from e-cigs, not smoking is your other option.

Seatbelt use doesn't get compared to driving your car into a guardrail. "But not wearing your seatbelt is 95% less harmful than driving your car into a brick wall, why doesn't anyone mention that?"

splawn3• 11 years ago

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that if I don't drive into a brick wall as soon as I wake up in the morning I can get reeeeally cranky. After a few hours of not driving into a wall I have problems thinking straight and I get all anxious and shakey. I was considering trying out the guardrail thing since it doesn't seem as bad (Some people can even still drive their car away afterwards), but I just heard that some guardrails use a paint that contains a pigment that can also be found in bricks so whats the point.

marincounty• 11 years ago

Anecdotal is fine. E-cigs are relatively new. I had a friend die of cigarette smoking. He just couldn't stop. I think he would still be around if e-cigs were around a few years ago.

noxToken• 11 years ago

Quoting directly from Reddit [1]:

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 ] 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.

[1] https://np.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3vxbzo/chemical_fla...

Edit: For the record, that is not my Reddit post. I found it to be very informative, so I thought I'd share it with the HN community. Please respect Reddit's no brigading policy - for both upvoting and downvoting posts.

gabemart• 11 years ago

Additional comments on post from 14 hours ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10700914

sneak• 11 years ago

It is important to note that the levels of these chemicals in the vapor from vaporizers is 50-100x lower than found in traditional, "analog" cigarettes.

m_eiman• 11 years ago

Why is that important? What might be important is whether the level of chemicals is high enough to pose a risk, not if something else is worse.

notlisted7• 11 years ago

I would say this context is important to weigh the dangers of analog vs digital. The 'popcorn lung' issue doesn't present itself with smokers of analog cigarettes, with higher concentrations of the same bad stuff, so why would anyone mention it in the context of digital cigarettes, unless it's scientific click-bait prepared for unscientific journalists looking for an article.

frozenport2• 11 years ago

Not clear why you are being downvoted. Many people start smoking with e-cigs. These are people who otherwise wouldn't smoke.

dogma1138• 11 years ago

Because bronchiolitis obliterans was never attributed to smoking before, and that diacetyl hasn't been actually studied as the cause of bronchiolitis obliterans before it the "popcorn lung" ordeal.

The warning against diacetyl was issued by OSHA after several cases of bronchiolitis obliterans (and if we are completely frank then lawsuits which lead to some investigation) were attributed to working with artificial butter flavorings for microwave / easymake popcorn.

Now the amount of cases was and still is negligible and while bronchiolitis obliterans on it self is extremely rare cases which can be tied even circumstantially to diacetyl are unicorns.

Here is the entry for Wikipedia regarding the causes: Bronchiolitis obliterans has many possible causes, including: collagen vascular disease, transplant rejection in organ transplant patients, viral infection (respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus, HIV, cytomegalovirus), Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, Pneumocystis pneumonia, drug reaction, aspiration and complications of prematurity (bronchopulmonary dysplasia), and exposure to toxic fumes, including: diacetyl, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, chlorine, thionyl chloride, methyl isocyanate, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen sulfide, phosgene, polyamide-amine dyes, mustard gas and ozone. It can also be present in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.[9] Certain orally administrated emergency medications, such as activated charcoal, have been known to cause it when aspirated. Additionally, the disorder may be idiopathic (without known cause).

If you look at the amount of causes listed and the last sentence that states that the disorder may as well turn out to be idiopathic building a scare against E-Cig's is silly, no one knew about bronchiolitis obliterans until when in 2007 Wayne Watson who used to eat like 10 bags of popcorn a day sued and got 7M in damages and the media have picked the popcorn lung story and ran with it as well as uncovering a handful of cases dating from the early 2000's where OSHA changed the regulation regarding diacetyl requiring respirators and ventilation during processing.

Now don't get me wrong diacetyl could cause or contribute to bronchiolitis obliterans or conditions that would allow the disorder to develop, but it could also be harmless or completely unrelated to the disorder, and even if is a cause so far all data we have points to the fact that it's extremely rare factor if one at all. This is what isn't being reported a proper report should read: "A study finds that diacetyl, a compound that might be linked to bronchiolitis obliterans is present in flavored E-Cig liquids Bronchiolitis obliterans also known as popcorn lung has been attributed to exposure to diacetyl during manufacturing of butter flavored microwave popcorn in a handful of cases in the United States. Diacetyl is also present in normal cigarettes in levels 50-100 times higher than the ones observed in E-Liquid. Smoking was never suspected as to have a direct to causal link to bronchiolitis obliterans as such while we advise some caution to be taken, there is no clear risk of bronchiolitis obliterans due to exposure to E-Cig vapor."

But that report will not really catch any head lines so: "E-Cig's vapor will give you one of the rarest lung diseases" is used instead.

kristofferR• 11 years ago

Because a lot of people are going to keep smoking cigarettes because ecigs "Cause lung cancer too".

EliRivers• 11 years ago

Life imitates art :)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/put-cancer-in-e-ci...

jaunkst• 11 years ago

I would never go back to smoking cigarettes. There is no comparison to e-cigs and cigarettes, obviously this is backed by the tobacco industry and that is the reason why its not a comparison of cigarettes and e-cigs; which is the real story that wasn't written.

joslin012• 11 years ago

Do you miss the subtler aspects of smoking cigarettes -- the smoke leaving the cigarette, the real fire at the tip, etc?

noelsusman• 11 years ago

I'm not the other guy, but the answer is yes, absolutely. E-cigarettes are not a full replacement for cigarettes. Like you mentioned a lot of the subtler aspects of cigarettes are completely missing from e-cigarettes.

It's a great way to stop smoking, but a lot of people act like you'll pick up an e-cigarette and never think about cigarettes again, which is absolutely untrue. It still takes a concerted effort to not fall off the wagon (I've fallen off twice so far).

srameshc• 11 years ago

I am sure production of Vape juice is totally unregulated. I have heard tales where budding entrepreneurs are starting their own Vape Juice factories. People who just understand a little bit of what goes in are running these production units. All they need is a minimum bulk order and they will label and package as per one's wish. So there are many brands right now that are being sold in stores but no body knows a thing about it, probably not even the guys who runs the manufacturing if those are harmful or not. Bottom line is don't trust the nicely packaged bottles of that harmful liquid. You never know what is inside.

desireco42• 11 years ago

This is a problem when you don't really solve your problem (smoking) but trying to find ways around it. Same thing is happening with diet.

AlexandrB• 11 years ago

That's assuming they think it's a problem. Just because you do doesn't make it so (and I'm a non-smoker, for the record).

Edit: If e-cigarettes allow someone to get their nicotine fix without the nasty health effects, all the more power to them.

techload• 11 years ago

I would appreciate if anyone could point me to some good links about e-cigs. I'm interested in switching but know nothing about. Thanks.

andrewrice• 11 years ago

There's a great subreddit that can point you in the right direction: https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/

ssewell• 11 years ago

For those are interested in a source of e-juice that doesn't contain Diacetyl or 2,3-Pentanedione, Johnson Creek provides third-party lab test results for many their products. For example: https://d1fardvzz27152.cloudfront.net/skin/frontend/jcosj/be...

Chemical flavorings found in e-cigarettes linked to lung disease

Related Stories