health risks associated with snuff?

[Madame Psychosis]

This is interesting, and I appreciate what's been posted here.

TV, thank you for that explanation. The medical database searches I did turn up so much about the problems of oral/moist/dry snuff in American journals (dip/chew!) and the low risks of snuff in Swedish journals (snus!), and it seems to be a language issue, since none of the studies turn out to reference nasal snuff.

A Medline search I did a while back revealed very little literature on nasal snuff, and what was there I couldn't even access the full text of (which is annoying and unusual in a medical database). But I bookmarked two abstracts that stuck out to me.

J Laryngol Otol. 2003 Sep;117(9):686-91.
Nasal snuff: historical review and health related aspects.
Sapundzhiev N, Werner JA.
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
With cigarette smoking declining in the modern world, the tobacco industry has to look for other products that can keep the old customers and attract new ones. Different forms of smokeless tobacco are currently massively promoted and are gaining in importance. Dry nasal snuff--the oldest known form of tobacco in Europe--is one of them. The health risks associated with it are different to those attributed to smoking and oral wet snuff. The nicotine contained leads to dependency. Its resorption rate is similar to that of smoking, so it could be seen as an adequate substitutional therapy. The risk for cardiovascular diseases is lower, compared to that for smokers. Chronic abuse leads to morphological and functional changes in the nasal mucosa. Although it contains substances that are potentially carcinogenic, at present, there is no firm evidence, relating the use of nasal snuff to a higher incidence of head and neck or other malignancies.

And a case:

Am J Otolaryngol. 2007 Sep-Oct;28(5):353-6.
Snuff-induced malignancy of the nasal vestibule: a case report.
Sreedharan S, Hegde MC, Pai R, Rhodrigues S, Kumar R, Rasheed A.
Department of ENT, Pathology and Prosthodontics, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.
The association between nasal snuff and malignancy is not well established. There is epidemiological evidence suggesting that oral tobacco when mixed with lime and betel leaves causes oral cancer in the Indian subcontinent. Similarly, snuff spiced with dried aloe has been reported to cause upper jaw malignancies in the Bantu tribes. The last reported case of nasal snuff causing cancer of the nose was described by John Hill in 1761. We describe here a case of a 69-year-old woman who developed a nasal vestibular malignancy after 30 years of snuff usage, and this, we believe, is the only reported case of nasal snuff causing cancer in the last 2 centuries.

This last statement has to be taken with a grain of salt. Most tobacco users, especially in India where chewing tobacco, bidis, etc. come in many forms, use more than one type of tobacco, so I assume that other cases of cancer associated with tobacco use simply didn't have clear causality.

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of the low incidence of reported cancers vs. the TSNA readings. (If there were an epidemic of malignancies associated with snuff, you'd think researchers would put out a lot more warnings.)

Total TSNAs of 6.0-10.0 ppm still puts those tested snuffs in the range of cigarettes, although by consumption quantities it's quite possible that ones actual intake of TSNAs is lower with snuff.
And not exposing yourself to smoke/burn products such as CO is absolutely a plus, so snuff is far safer for cardiovascular and lung health. This is why I think it still deserves a place in the harm-reduction arsenal.
But in terms of absolute (rather than relative) safety...dunno what to say.

 

[W Axl Rose]

Madame P did you mean 6-10% or 6-10 ppm???
What was that one study who had snuff at 1200 for tsna's referring to exactly? Was that nasal stuff? I think TV might know...
I really don't understand why there is not more info!!

 

[The Wiz]

This is interesting, and I appreciate what's been posted here.

TV, thank you for that explanation. The medical database searches I did turn up so much about the problems of oral/moist/dry snuff in American journals (dip/chew!) and the low risks of snuff in Swedish journals (snus!), and it seems to be a language issue, since none of the studies turn out to reference nasal snuff.

A Medline search I did a while back revealed very little literature on nasal snuff, and what was there I couldn't even access the full text of (which is annoying and unusual in a medical database). But I bookmarked two abstracts that stuck out to me.



And a case:


This last statement has to be taken with a grain of salt. Most tobacco users, especially in India where chewing tobacco, bidis, etc. come in many forms, use more than one type of tobacco, so I assume that other cases of cancer associated with tobacco use simply didn't have clear causality.

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of the low incidence of reported cancers vs. the TSNA readings. (If there were an epidemic of malignancies associated with snuff, you'd think researchers would put out a lot more warnings.)

Total TSNAs of 6.0-10.0% still puts those tested snuffs in the range of cigarettes, although by consumption quantities it's quite possible that ones actual intake of TSNAs is lower with snuff.
And not exposing yourself to smoke/burn products such as CO is absolutely a plus, so snuff is far safer for cardiovascular and lung health. This is why I think it still deserves a place in the harm-reduction arsenal.
But in terms of absolute (rather than relative) safety...dunno what to say.

MP...Thanks for the post...I do echo your thoughts on that last line....I have not seen to much of anything written on the harmful long term effects of snuff use.Until I do I will continue to use it regularly as part of my dialy nicotine intake.After over 200 years of usage one would think there would be more to report.Very odd indeed!

The Wiz!

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

I had read that second one, too. I feel the same....reduced harm seems to be a given......absolute safety, there really is not such thing. Taking all things into consideration I feel confident that the food additives I consume are much more detrimental to my health than snuff .

 

[The Wiz]

I had read that second one, too. I feel the same....reduced harm seems to be a given......absolute safety, there really is not such thing. Taking all things into consideration I feel confident that the food additives I consume are much more detrimental to my health than snuff .

Me too TV....I just cant seem to get enough MSG these days!

The Wiz!

 

[W Axl Rose]

I just don't know how they can test it once and come up with numbers over a thousand, then retest and come up with 10?? Geez, if I were that inaccurate in my work, I would be fired on the spot!

 

[Madame Psychosis]

The lack of information probably has everything to do with the fact that nasal snuff is simply not used on the same scale as cigarettes or even dip.
We rely on Sweden to provide snus data, because it's so popular there. But nasal snuff probably has the most users (by total consumption and by # of people) in India and the surrounding region, where medical/epidemiological research just isn't as rigorously standardized or well-funded as it is in Europe or North America.

Most people in America these days seem to consider snuff a very Old World gentlemanly sort of thing, just quaint. I don't know if it will regain the kind of popularity needed to spur funding grants for research, but time will tell.

Madame P did you mean 6-10% or 6-10 ppm???
What was that one study who had snuff at 1200 for tsna's referring to exactly? Was that nasal stuff? I think TV might know...
I really don't understand why there is not more info!!

You're right, it's parts per million, not percentages -- thanks for pointing that out, I corrected it. I was going through the chart and somehow my mind just transported the "%" sign from "%Dry Matter" over to the TSNA counts even though I had ppm in mind.

The study chart that dgriego linked to listed Bruton, Red Seal, Dental Sweet, and Scotch, four nasal snuffs. Bruton and Red Seal apparently had the wild readings in the original, erroneous version. TSNAs of 1200 ppm is off the charts compared to everything else.

A difference of orders of magnitude is a pretty huge measurement error (equipment malfunction? underpaid postdoc running the tests at 3am? both?), and it stands out like a sore thumb on that old chart. Any scientist gets used to questioning the data points that make no sense whatsoever, so I'm actually surprised they left that in there in the initial chart.

I have become increasingly cynical about errors in tobacco research, however, because conclusions that fall on the side of certain near-universal biases in the scientific community (anti-tobacco, pro-regulation) tend to go unquestioned. (The "third-hand smoke" study just clinched that view for me.) It saddens me, because I'm such a huge believer in the scientific method, hard data, and the peer review system.

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

I have become increasingly cynical about errors in tobacco research, however, because conclusions that fall on the side of certain near-universal biases in the scientific community (anti-tobacco, pro-regulation) tend to go unquestioned. (The "third-hand smoke" study just clinched that view for me.) It saddens me, because I'm such a huge believer in the scientific method, hard data, and the peer review system.

Government grants and peer-pressure have changed the scientific landscape over the last 100 years. For the sake of me and exo's friendship I won't bring up the evolution/creation debate, but there's still global warming to consider .

 

[exogenesis]

Ha !, TV for ever the diplomat

Here's a confirmatory link that I posted a while ago (in the wrong thread probably)

http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/4fc74817-64c5-4105-951e-38239b09c5db.pdf

A lot more diverse info (takes a bit of reading),
but confirms the Bruton snuff (and one other) at 1000+ ppm TSNA (page 147),
although it's 'only' 40 or 65 ppm for some other dry snuffs.

Also says straight tobacco leaf starts out at 0.2 ppm TSNA (page 153),
so quite how they get to 1000 ppm is amazing, given snus are generally 2 ppm.

 

[Captain Morgan]

There is another thing I didn't see anyone mention that speaks toward the relative safety of nasal snuff. That is, there is absolutely NO record of any user ever having brought legal proceedings for health damages against a snuff manufacturer. I have used nasal snuff for the past two years without any usage problems whatsoever. And on the plus side, a little Wilsons White can open clogged sinuses better than nasal spray.

 

[The Wiz]

There is another thing I didn't see anyone mention that speaks toward the relative safety of nasal snuff. That is, there is absolutely NO record of any user ever having brought legal proceedings for health damages against a snuff manufacturer. I have used nasal snuff for the past two years without any usage problems whatsoever. And on the plus side, a little Wilsons White can open clogged sinuses better than nasal spray.

Thanks for the Post Captain! I have just about reached the six month mark on my snuff use...No ill effects to speak of. I continue to believe that snuff is by far the safest form of tobacco use! If you really want to open those sinuses get a can of Hedges "The Snuff".....It will make your eyes water!

The Wiz!

 

[Captain Morgan]

Thanks for the Post Captain! I have just about reached the six month mark on my snuff use...No ill effects to speak of. I continue to believe that snuff is by far the safest form of tobacco use! If you really want to open those sinuses get a can of Hedges "The Snuff".....It will make your eyes water!

The Wiz!

Yes, one could use Hedges L260, "The Snuff", to open the sinuses, but you need to be impervious to cerebral hemorrhages before you snort that. 8-o Just kidding, of course! It is perfectly safe. If you like the L260 you would probably like some of the Indian Snuff as well, like Dholakia Manjul or Chakali Blue Cool Mentholated. They are all dry, finely powdered, strong snuffs guaranteed to keep you awake during any long boring meeting .

 

[Kitabz]

Thanks for the Post Captain! I have just about reached the six month mark on my snuff use...No ill effects to speak of. I continue to believe that snuff is by far the safest form of tobacco use! If you really want to open those sinuses get a can of Hedges "The Snuff".....It will make your eyes water!

The Wiz!

Yes indeed.

My brother's girlfriend is having real difficulty with e-cigs - they make her cough immediately and constantly (both PG & VG) even though she doesn't cough at all with real cigarettes. Must be something in the flavourings I guess.

Anyway, I gave her some Hedges to try by first putting it in the depression on the back of her hand - so far so good.

Then I gave her a reused Toque bullet with Hedges in it and it just about blew her head off.
I'd forgotten to tell her that it's very easy to over-sniff when using a bullet because of the air channel next to the chamber. Oops.

When she stopped crying, she did say that she quite liked it. Maybe she was just being polite though...