Health Effects of Smokeless Tobacco Products

[Bagazo]

Just had a look through this document:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/c...nihr_o_009.pdf

One of the things that made me do a double take was this found on page 56:

"The average snus user will be exposed to about 6 times more TSNA than the average smoker."

Another thing that makes me think twice about smokeless tobacco is this found on wikipedia:

N-Nitrosonornicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Some of the NNN present in the saliva of tobacco users is produced endogenously from nitrite in saliva and tobacco alkaloids including nicotine."

Now I'm not anti-snus or anti-tobacco or anti-anything really: I think that a person is free to do as he or she thinks fit but having a bit more info to make that decision is nice.

[Tugger]

Snus has been studied to death. The Swedish government did an exhaustive study where they showed that in a group of 280,000 snus users, mortality was not adversely affected. From everything I've seen, snus and NRT are the only options with strong epidemiological evidence that they are relatively benign. The evidence is actually stronger for snus, since it's been around a long time and they've been able to track a large population of users throughout their lifetimes.

[Dredbull]

yes yes great for the cause blah blah.. we have read these we understand it is not totaly safe but it is damned site safe than dip and smoking.

[TWISTED VICTOR]

Just had a look through this document:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/c...nihr_o_009.pdf

One of the things that made me do a double take was this found on page 56:

"The average snus user will be exposed to about 6 times more TSNA than the average smoker."

Ah, interesting. I'll be giving this a good read for sure. I did notice it shows an exclusion to Swedish snus:

"All STP cause localised oral
lesions and a high risk for development of oral cancer has been shown for various STP
but has not been proven for Swedish moist snuff (snus)."

In my brief overview it appears to be aim at fermented tobacco. I'll sure read it, though.

Another thing that makes me think twice about smokeless tobacco is this found on wikipedia:

N-Nitrosonornicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Some of the NNN present in the saliva of tobacco users is produced endogenously from nitrite in saliva and tobacco alkaloids including nicotine."

Something else that requires more study. Up in the air, so far. DVap or Madame Psychosis are much better suited here.

[Bagazo]

The question that comes to my mind is that if snus users are getting 6 times more exposure to TSNAs and the years of use shows that mortality was not adversely affected by that amount of TSNAs then maybe TSNA content is not indicative of how safe or dangerous a tobacco product is.

[TWISTED VICTOR]

It's a fair post all. But I think it only points toward fermented smokeless. Here's a good study by the folks who started the whole anti movement back in the '60s. Note that they're only interested in the facts and truly have no political agenda.

http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/cont...239b09c5db.pdf

The safety margin is pretty well documented in a variety of other studies, also.

[TWISTED VICTOR]

The question that comes to my mind is that if snus users are getting 6 times more exposure to TSNAs and the years of use shows that mortality was not adversely affected by that amount of TSNAs then maybe TSNA content is not indicative of how safe or dangerous a tobacco product is.

That's something to consider. "NA"'s (nitrosamines) exists in so many things, food, environment and all. The "TS" (tobacco specific) is what scares everybody for some reason. We can eat a potato with much higher amounts of NA than tobacco, but don't flinch. Throw that TS in front of it and it becomes evil. Nitrosamines are carcinogenic, but so are a lot of other things in everyone's daily lives. The bottom line is how much can our individual bodies handle, regardless of the source?

[Bagazo]

yes yes great for the cause blah blah.. we have read these we understand it is not totaly safe but it is damned site safe than dip and smoking.

http://cro.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/15/5/252.pdf

on page 7 of this document there is a table showing total TSNA levels for different tobacco products. One of the things that surprised me was that two chewing tobaccos had lower total TSNA than the swidish snus and that all four were below the 5ppm standard set by SwedishMatch.

Another thing was that the four dry Snuffs tested where actually rather high (although in the text of the document it states that the 2 really high numbers were retested and the new test gave 6.0 and10.0 ppm) still all above the snus standard but I have read on some snuff boards that snuff also has a 200 year track record with only one death being recorded as a possible result of snuff use (sorry don't have that source right now but will look).

[Dredbull]

Sorry there is NO WAY! fermented american style dip is better than snus.

Going by TSNA is not the only answer american dip also has a crap ton of other nasty stuff in it to hook the good old dipper.
Please do not put yourself out on the research I personally do not give 2 craps about studies, I would rather take the first hand experience and knowledge of friends who have dipped and have oral cancer.

[dgriego]

I appreciate the post and will read the studies but I doubt it will have much effect on my choices. For me it is snuff or smoke and just from a financial aspect snuff is way cheaper. smoking a pack and a half a day would cost me about 9$ a day, the snuff I use is pennies a day.

I do wonder if some of the snuffs that are fermented have higher levels than the rest. As far as I know certain snuffs are made with fermented tobacco. I think Schmalzlers are for sure.