CASAA Call to Action: Five Pawns and Cloud 9 Vaping locked horns about a month ago over lab results which showed very high levels of Diketones in Five Pawns juice. I covered this issue in great detail in two previous posts titled Vapers: Are ejuice vendors properly disclosing the contents of their ejuice? and The Five Pawns Vaping Tragedy Continues. If your not uptodate on this issue I suggest you read both of my previous posts. The purpose of this Blog posts is to analyze and document a thread on ECF which Rob Fitz real name Rob Fitzgerald, CFO/Partner at Five Pawns started . This is only Part 1 and I will publish Part 2. Given the complexities and noise in this thread, I’m going to start with what I refer to as the “Battle of the Labs”. When I use the term “Walk Back” in this Blog post I mean: You often hear the term used in politics and it generally means the speaker has changed their “story”, contradicting their previous statements, using obfuscation, and talking out of both sides of their mouth. It’s a very old “ploy” which works with some vapers but not myself and many other vapers.
The Five Pawns owners: Rob Fitzgerald, Rodney Jerabek, and Gavin Tucker
The battle of the labs started when Five Pawns lawyered up and made the following statement on their Blog:
This week, it came to our attention that fraudulent claims have been made about our e-liquids. We take these accusations very seriously, not only for ourselves but the industry as a whole. It is reckless and liable to post test results on products using a non-validated method. Therefore, we have issued a Cease and Desist in the matter and are aggressively pursuing all legal remedy necessary to correct the public record. Source
On ECF Fitz said:
Absolutely willing to talk about it. We completely dispute those results and we believe it’s haphazard to release results when there is no data on the chain of custody where there can be possible tampering or cross contamination, were the bottles that where tested in their original sealed packaging, were the bottles shaken properly before testing, utilizing an unaccredited lab for such tests, no standard for testing (there are multiple ways to test and extraction methods) which can result in very differing results, etc… We completely stand behind the safety of our liquids and would not have our family members, friends, and loyal consumers vaping our liquids if we ever thought the opposite. Let me know if you have any other questions regarding this situation. Source
Walk back #1 by Fitz
To help clear up some of the confusion on the “unaccredited” and testing issues. We are not stating that Cloud9 or West Yorkshire Analytics did anything to manipulate the numbers or falsify the result. We only know that the results were far exceeding anything we have ever seen from our multiple tests using many different methods and labs to verify data we were receiving. We only dispute these results as there are so many factors in testing that are not being addressed or validated when these results are posted. We do know, if you speak to any lab technician, chemist or researcher, there are many factors that can skew or give you inaccurate readings on the results.
As for the accreditation, If you look at the bottom of the test results from West Yorkshire( Attached) , They clearly state the following:
1. Tests marked * in this report are not included in the UKAS Accreditation Schedule for our Laboratory
2. Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of UKAS accreditation
3. Method numbers beginning EXT have been sub-contracted.
We do know that they are accredited from UKAS, just not for the tests they were conducting on DA/AP. It is also strange to see the sample description of our liquids as “Straw” or “Orange”. I would have expected the actual name of the flavor they were testing.?? Source
Walk back #2 by Fitz
I am sure they are a highly respected and credible lab and it was not our intention to say otherwise. We are not privy to the information as to what tests they have validated when they are performing test on these ingredients. That being said, we are just quoting what is said on their own lab reports, specifically in connection to testing these compounds. We do understand that validating a testing method for these components is very expensive, time consuming, and to our knowledge no one has validated their testing methods. However, we have spent the time and money to validate our testing method using GC/FID.
Newport Scientific has worked in the pharmaceutical space for decades and has held FDA registrations. They aren’t accredited but all of theirs SOPs operate under GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. Its important to understand that if your tests aren’t validated an accreditation doesn’t insure an accurate result from the test. As we mentioned in previous posts we have validated our testing methodology with linearity, LOD, LOQ, and recovery. Source
Five Pawns Blog posts extracts
There is currently no standardized or approved methodology for testing e-liquids. That needs to change.
Safety of e-liquids is of vital importance to the continued growth of our industry and Five Pawns intends to lead the way. Source
My thoughts
The Blog posts above are simply a guise and sales procedure to enhance their brand which to a certain extent is expected. They also serve to justify their own lab results. Memo to the boys at Five Pawns: Industry standards are never set by a single company. Period. If you are genuinely concerned with helping the industry and setting industry wide testing standards that are peer reviewed, then use your influence to enlist the support of Scientists like Dr. Farsalinos and your own Dr. Richard Kanner together with AEMSA. Perhaps you are doing this behind the scenes and if so, you need to clearly and directly state this as opposed to talking about your own studies. If you need my help at the grass roots level, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
I have issues with your statements above which read in part: “…if your tests aren’t validated an accreditation doesn’t insure an accurate result from the test. As we mentioned in previous posts we have validated our testing methodology with linearity, LOD, LOQ, and recovery”. This statement lacks merit and to a large extent is “double speak”. Your inferring that your tests are validated by whose industry standards? Your own opinion is fine with me but your inferences are specious. So we should believe that no other lab on planet Earth or Mars uses validated testing. We should believe your lab results are the final word on the respective levels. Your also inferring that you know all the details and validating procedures used by other highly regarded Labs. You don’t know this! Sorry Charlie, that’s not the way this issue works in the real world.
My own extensive research on the “lab” issue indicates that West Yorkshire Analytical Services, which Cloud 9 used, is highly qualified. They hold both UKAS accreditation and ISO/IEC 17025:2005 Accreditation. Read this. This lab is used by the UK Government, the UK police department, UK regulatory agencies and many other businesses. Their reputation is without question. They are the only lab in this battle which provides tests results for NIC, PG, and VG. It is my understanding that testing protocols which include levels of NIC, PG, and VG are significantly more expensive than only testing for Diketones. If you look around the industry, you’re unlikely to find other ejuice manufactures or vendors which provide this data to vapers. This speaks volumes about the outstanding credibility and desire for complete transparency by Cloud 9 Vaping. Read their lab results. As a point of reference with respect to ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation, Enthalpy holds ISO/IEC 17025 accredation . A widely used Lab for DA/AP testing by VaporShark, Dr. F, and ECTA.
The preferred lab of Five Pawns is Newport Scientific Inc. I have performed my own extensive research on this lab. I have absolutely no doubt that Dr. Richard Kanner PHD/Newport Scientific is very highly qualified in spite of the fact that his lab lacks ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation. Read their lab results. Both labs are highly qualified to perform the relevant tests.
Lab results for DA and AP can vary widely, even in this case where both labs are highly qualified and in this case, both results are accurate for the batches they tested. Reformulation is expected, good, and SOP so the name of the juice stays the same but the test results will significantly vary because of reformulation. Other variables significantly contribute to varying test results. In a rough order of likelihood:
Steeping time – time in the bottle
The components of the third party flavors used in the mix (Five Pawns admits they failed to test these for Diketones)
The NIC – Organic Purity
Lab conditions and equipment
My conclusions on the battle of the labs
Utterly ridiculous! Five Pawns didn’t like the lab results data. Period. So, let’s shoot the messenger (the Cloud 9 Lab reports) and call the lab reports “fraudulent” and then pile on with more specious comments like “unaccredited”, obfuscate the issue with talk about the chain of custody and samples which the Five Pawns lab doesn’t document and is assumed to be valid when using any reputable lab. Well, that didn’t fly so it’s walk back time. Contradict your own statements. Your own words with a source link. PLEASE, spare me! Most of the peanut gallery failed to notice the following critical issues which I find nearly as troubling as the DA/AP issue: The levels of NIC, PG, and VG in the West Yorkshire Analytical Services lab reports for Cloud 9 Vaping are significantly different than the advertised levels of these components in the juice. Many are way way beyond the generally accepted 10% margin of error. For example, advertising a NIC level of 3MG when in fact lab reports show 2.1MG. Deplorable!
In Part 2 I will cover the critical issue of exactly what Five Pawns told customers who asked if their liquids contained Diketones. In the ECF thread, they admitted that they mislead vapers and fortunately, they have recently taken a first step in correcting this issue with additional disclosures titled “Five Pawns 3Q 2015 & Past 12 Months Test Results” and new internal disclosure procedures. This is good news. EDIT on 8/12/15: For a quick partial preview of the issues I plan to cover in Part 2, read this and my follow up post.
I’m using the following Banner on ECF. Please send me your thoughts.
DISCLAIMER/DISCLOSURE: No one asked me to make this post. I do not and will not accept any form of compensation or “in kind” for any post I make. I have no “skin in the game”. I have purchased Gambit and Perpetual Check from Five Pawns. I have also purchased equipment from Cloud 9 Vaping. NONE of these vendors were aware of this post and it’s contents before I published it. That’s the way I roll so deal with it. 🙂