Old Goat
Administrator
I am officially sick of popcorn lung.
Not the condition itself. Bronchiolitis obliterans is real. It is serious. Nobody with two brain cells and a half-charged mod should pretend otherwise.
I am sick of the way the phrase gets dragged out every time someone wants to scare people about vaping without bothering to explain the facts properly.
At this point, “popcorn lung” has become the internet’s favourite little panic button. Someone sees a bottle of custard, bakery, cream, or dessert liquid, and suddenly they are standing there like a medical expert in a Facebook comment section, warning everyone that their lungs are about to turn into a Ster-Kinekor combo meal.
And honestly?
The Old Goat has had enough.
Let us start with the boring adult bit, because apparently this needs to be said before the pitchfork crowd arrives.
Diacetyl is real. It was used in buttery flavourings. It was linked to lung disease in factory workers who were exposed to high levels of it in industrial settings. Inhaling flavouring chemicals is not the same thing as eating them. Just because something is safe in food does not automatically mean it is safe to breathe.
Fine. Agreed. No argument there.
But now let us talk about the part that keeps getting conveniently swept under the rug.
Cigarettes also contain diacetyl.
There it is. The sentence that should make the popcorn lung crowd slow down for five seconds.
Because if diacetyl is the monster under the bed, then why does the cigarette keep getting treated like the harmless old uncle at the braai?
Cancer Research UK says there have been no confirmed cases of popcorn lung linked to e-cigarettes. The NHS says vaping does not cause “popcorn lung” and points out that diacetyl is contained in cigarette smoke. The NHS also says nicotine vaping is not risk-free, but is less harmful than smoking. Cancer Research UK says children and people who have never smoked should not vape, but also says research so far shows legal e-cigarettes are less harmful than smoking and can be an effective stop-smoking tool.
That is not some random vape bro with a skull logo on his Facebook profile saying it.
That is Cancer Research UK and the NHS.
So why does the internet keep acting like the discussion is simple?
Why is it always:
“Vape liquid had trace diacetyl, therefore doom.”
But almost never:
“Cigarettes contain diacetyl too, along with tar, carbon monoxide, carcinogens, and the chemical circus created when you set tobacco on fire and inhale the smoke.”
That is the BS part.
Not the concern. The concern is valid.
The BS is the selective concern.
Johns Hopkins takes a much harsher tone on vaping. They warn that vaping can expose users to harmful chemicals, including diacetyl, formaldehyde and acrolein. They talk about possible lung harm, lipoid pneumonia, collapsed lungs and the fact that we still do not fully understand the long-term effects.
Fair enough. That is their position.
The American Heart Association also comes in hard. They say e-cigarettes should not be promoted as a safe alternative to smoking. They warn about nicotine addiction, youth use, diacetyl, heavy metals, volatile organic compounds and the possibility of “renormalising” smoking.
Again, fine. That is a caution-based position.
But even there, the wording matters. “Not safe” is not the same as “just as bad as smoking.” “Not harmless” is not the same as “your lungs are now popcorn.” “We need more long-term data” is not the same as “ignore all harm reduction because fear sounds better.”
That is where this debate keeps falling apart.
Medical News Today gets closer to the balanced version when it says neither smoking nor vaping is beneficial to health, and that smoking appears more harmful than vaping, while still making it clear that vaping is not safe. That is at least a grown-up sentence. It allows two things to be true at once.
One: vaping is not harmless.
Two: smoking is worse.
Apparently that level of thinking is too advanced for the popcorn lung parrots.
Then we get The Conversation style of headline. “Popcorn lung: how vaping could scar your lungs for life.”
Could. Might. Possible. Risk. Concern.
Those words matter. Science often speaks in uncertainty because science is careful. But the internet does not hear uncertainty. The internet hears, “Your custard liquid is a lung grenade.”
And then off we go again.
Now let us talk about Parents Against Vaping and PAVe.
Their mission is very clear. They are fighting youth vaping, flavoured products, Big Tobacco, teen nicotine addiction, and marketing that hooks kids. On that point, I have no fight with them. Kids should not vape. Non-smokers should not vape. Teenagers should not be pulled into nicotine because a disposable tastes like a sweet shop had a baby with a nightclub.
No argument.
But adult smokers are a different conversation.
And this is where campaign language can become a blunt instrument.
If your target is Big Tobacco using flavours to hook kids, fine. Swing the hammer.
But if your hammer also smashes adult harm reduction, adult choice, DIY mixing, independent vape shops, and smokers who are trying not to die with a cigarette in their hand, then maybe your hammer needs a bit more aim.
Because for many of us, vaping was not a fashion accessory. It was not a TikTok trick. It was not a toy.
It was the thing that got us away from cigarettes.
I can only speak for myself here, but I am healthier now than I ever was while smoking. My lungs have not turned into a movie snack. I do not wake up sounding like an old diesel engine trying to start in winter. I do not stink like an ashtray. I can breathe better. I can taste things again.
And yes, as a DIY mixer, I have used some of those old V1 concentrates. The ones that later got treated like they were bottled in a haunted lab by Satan’s flavour apprentice.
Some of those concentrates had trace amounts of diacetyl or related compounds.
Trace amounts.
Not me working twelve-hour shifts inside a popcorn factory breathing industrial butter fog.
Not me chain-smoking combusted tobacco.
Trace amounts in flavour concentrates used in recipes by adult mixers who knew exactly what they were doing and were making informed choices.
And yet, because the conversation became so hysterical, half the good stuff got reformulated, pulled, buried, or quietly vanished.
The old custards.
The proper creams.
The bakeries with body.
The dessert notes that actually tasted like dessert and not like someone whispered pudding at a bottle of warm PG.
Gone.
Now we get “safer” versions that often taste like the original recipe’s accountant.
Yes, safety matters. I am not saying manufacturers should hide ingredients. I am not saying testing is bad. I am not saying diacetyl belongs in e-liquid. I am not saying people should buy mystery juice from some oke mixing in a garage next to a petrol can and a lawnmower.
Testing is good.
Transparency is good.
Regulation that actually understands the product is good.
Keeping vaping away from kids is good.
But fearmongering is not good.
And pretending that a trace amount of diacetyl in a DIY custard concentrate is the same conversation as industrial exposure, cigarette smoke, youth disposables, THC oil scandals, and Big Tobacco marketing is not science.
It is a mess.
The popcorn lung debate has become a junk drawer. Everything gets thrown in there.
Diacetyl? Popcorn lung.
Flavours? Popcorn lung.
Disposable vapes? Popcorn lung.
Teen vaping? Popcorn lung.
Adult smoker switching to a refillable device? Popcorn lung.
DIY mixer using an old custard concentrate? Popcorn lung.
No. Stop it.
Use the right words.
If you are talking about youth vaping, say youth vaping.
If you are talking about Big Tobacco marketing to kids, say Big Tobacco marketing to kids.
If you are talking about unknown long-term inhalation risks, say unknown long-term inhalation risks.
If you are talking about diacetyl, then talk about dose, exposure, context, regulation, smoking, and actual confirmed cases.
Do not just shout “popcorn lung” like a goat stuck in a tin shed.
Here is the Old Goat position, plain and simple:
Vaping is not for kids.
Vaping is not for non-smokers.
Vaping is not harmless.
Diacetyl is not something we should casually ignore.
Manufacturers should test products properly.
DIY mixers should know what they are using.
But adult smokers deserve honest harm reduction, not cartoon-level panic.
And if you are going to scream about diacetyl in e-liquid while ignoring diacetyl in cigarette smoke, then you are not having a health discussion. You are doing theatre.
Bad theatre.
The kind where everyone overacts, nobody reads the script, and the cigarette somehow gets to play the victim.
So yes, talk about risk.
Talk about the unknowns.
Talk about youth protection.
Talk about dodgy disposables and cowboy liquids.
But stop pretending popcorn lung is the ace card that ends every vaping discussion.
Because it does not.
It just proves that once again, the loudest person in the room is not always the one who read the sources.
Now excuse me while I go pour one out for every dead V1 custard recipe that got sacrificed on the altar of internet panic.
Some of those recipes had more backbone than half the arguments thrown against them.