It seems FlavourArt, unsurprisingly, is already ahead of the game. They state at the bottom that "DIY Flavorings" would be subject to regulation. But what constitutes "flavorings for eliquid" and "candy flavorings" isn't made clear. Their ClearStream program is pretty much making sure all their flavorings are up to snuff with FDA standards, although we're not sure how PMTA will treat certain flavor profiles in the future. Also we see that FA is a strong advocate for the Vapor Technology Association, which many lawyers are starting to back as well. What I find interesting is how FA is working alongside the accredited labs the VTA represents. If anyone is wondering about "Big Vapor", we can see the beginnings of it now. Anyways, just thought you guys would wanna see what FA had to say about all this bullshit. KEEP MIXING
I think it's important to point out this tidbit from the new deeming rule everyone seems to keep overlooking. From page 22 of the rule
E-liquids that do not contain tobacco or nicotine or are not derived from tobacco or nicotine do not meet the definition of "covered tobacco product," as described throughout this final rule, and will not be required to carry an addiction warning or to submit a self-certification.
Unless they retract this I don't see why flavor companies would even care about the regs at all, except for tobacco flavors. FlavourArt cares because they sell premixed juices, containing nicotine, in the EU and probably hoped to move into the NA market with them at some point.
Having PMTAs for their products would make it easier for their consumers to file SE applications I would guess.
Interesting so if companies made a concentrate of your favourite ejuice without any tobacco flavourings and you had to add nicotine (guessing people have stocked up )and what vg/pg percentage those rules wouldn't apply ?
I'm not a lawyer, or any kind of expert on government regs, but it sure sounds like a get out of jail free card to me. I encourage everyone to read at least the preamble to the rule, it's long and will piss you off but there's interesting stuff in there.
https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/13104981_1172357882777065_863221283_n.pdf/2016-10685.pdf?oh=6c306a653bb07b04bd1269ff9a9c836c&oe=572DB329&dl=1
That's what they do in Australia. Paging /u/InertiaCreeping for details.
/u/Paleone123 /u/Ketts
Yoyoyo, yep, that's exactly what we do down under- 99% of the juice I sell is a "doubler"-
Basically the bottle of juice comes half full- when I make the juice, say, a 20L batch, I simply leave out 10L of the PG/VG that would be added. This creates a juice that is twice the strenght, and requires 1:1 nicotine to be added to it to bring it down to vapable levels.
So, someone buys a 30ml doubler. Adds 30ml of 6mg nicotine = resulting in 60ml of 3mg juice.
http://vapoureyes.com.au/pages/what-are-doublers
I'm pretty sure nude nicotine, wizard labs, etc, will be able to get their nic base approved through the FDA. All the other stuff we use is candy and baking flavors.
Why are there going to be no more tastings in the shops then? All the samples I've ever tasted were 0 nic so how does this affect that or is there another piece of information in missing? ( I know what your saying is in reference to concentrates but if no nic is in the final bottle of a vendor then wouldn't that also not be covered?)
Again, I'm not a lawyer. Remember that mods and atomizers also contain no nic or tobacco, yet they are deemed ENDS (electronic nicotine delivery system) products, and are considered "covered tobacco products" by the rule. Making sense to us average schmoes is not a requirement when this stuff is being written.
Edit: In the following paragraph I'm talking about taste testing at tester bar in a vape shop or elsewhere
If I had to guess I'd say you still will not be able to get free samples under the rule, because they have convinced themselves that free sample means easy access for children, even if that is rediculous in reality. Since you have to employ an ENDS to consume (vape) the liquid in order to taste test, and children are forbidden from having access to ANY "covered tobacco product" (which included ENDS now), they will not care what the liquid is.
Vendors SHOULD be able to give away bottles of 0 nic versions of their flavors though (as long as they are tobacco free), because those eliquids are not subject to the rule.
Thank you for clearing that up. This is all just so mind boggling that this is really happening all to keep people smoking. To me it would seem smarter for them ( big tobacco) to embrace this new technology and move in this direction which would increase profits instead of trying to fight it. We all know it's about the money so why cut off the hand that could line your pockets.
> Making sense to us average schmoes is not a requirement when this stuff is being written.
That's why I think it's a good idea for the community to wait a week or two before getting too worked up (I mean, beyond what we already are.) There are quite a few people on our side, including lawyers and legal experts, who are poring over the regs...but it's 500 pages plus references to other Acts and regs. It'll take a little while to read through everything and sort it out, but they'll have a much better idea of what it actually says since they're experienced in translating legalese.
I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I just don't have time to read a 500-page government document, let alone reading through probably hundreds of additional pages of other regs that it relates to or coincides with; it's necessary to understand those other regs before you can even begin on the new ones! I'd rather let experienced individuals do what they're doing to help us, because it's way out of my wheelhouse (and probably most people here.) They'll be able to not only get through all of it faster than we could, but also break it down into something we can digest without misinterpreting things. CASAA and SFATA are on it, the few lobbyists we have are on it, people like Stefan Didek are on it, and those are just the first few that immediately come to mind. In other words, let them take the wheel for the next couple weeks and do the thing they're best at; meanwhile, we can take a deep breath and compose ourselves to prepare for the fight ahead.
The bad news here is if other flavor vendors don't get on hiring lawyers immediately, expect competition to drop and prices to go up.
Not really. The bakery aisle is not going to stop selling flavours any time soon. If FA can afford to do what they do with some of their competitors just flat out lying, they'll be able to do it when/if they're getting bigger economies of scale.
I totally agree, and some of the DIY vendors are already marketing their goods as "food/candy" flavoring only, which puts them a step ahead.
It'll be up to the community to repurpose these food/candy flavors specific to vaping, of course, so nothing changes there at all.
Nonetheless, expect the FDA to send some vague threatening-language letters to vendors pretty quickly. Non-enforcement letters, but some people get skittish when shysters in DC send cutesy letters.
Edit: lol at downvotes. Speak your mind in replies if you think you can find something wrong with this comment.
I loathe the FDA due to it's pandering to lobbyists, but I have serious doubts that they will be able to regulate non-nic flavors or have any impact on that part of the market. If the flavors have premixed nic then you are absolutely correct.
@ your edit: not a vote one way or the other
But FlavourArt is more of a niche flavor manufacturer, they aren't like Watkins or McCormick. If the other niche flavor manufacturers like TFA, CAP, and FW are out of the market, I assure you FA will increase prices.
Dr. Siegel touches on this at 32:50 in this webinar hosted yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNAFyiNYGMw
If "FlavorCo Flavors" sells to eliquid manufacturers only, they are exempt from regulation. If they sell to the DIY market, they must then comply, which requires testing every single flavor component they manufacture, on every possible device manufactured.
"FlavorCo Flavors" can't afford this.
"With the intention of being used in eliquid production." He spoke today on VP Live saying how he thinks appropriate labelling would be required in order to get around that trap. "not for use with tobacco" would just have to be on the bottle, or something of that nature. I'll tell you though that this was a concern I had when I first heard about the PMTA. I had a feeling that the FDA could pressure flavoring houses selling to Eliquid Manufacturers, but not to consumers....it seems its the other way around.