US Army falsely claims "Smokeless tobacco is as harmful as smoking tobacco"

[kristin]

But, IMO, with such harsh words one needs to be exactly right.

If only the ANTZ shared your ethical standards....

 

[rothenbj]

If only the ANTZ shared your ethical standards....

Why do I have the "I have a dream" speech flowing through the back of my mind?

 

[nopatch]

"Smokeless tobacco is as harmful as
smoking tobacco."..

This statement would be incorrect if oral cancer is taken in to account.Chewing tobacco has much much higher risks with regards to oral cancer compared to smoking.I know well documented cases in india correlating oral cancer with chewing tobacco.

It seems most of the chewing tobacco grade available in american market is regular fermented tobacco.CDC - Fact Sheet - Smokeless Tobacco Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use

 

[Vocalek]

It is a myth that US chewing tobacco carries higher health risks than smoking. Health risks from smoking exceed the health risks of any other type of tobacco/nicotine product made in North America.

Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995 Aug;80(2):178-82.
Tobacco use and cancer. A reappraisal.

Vigneswaran N, Tilashalski K, Rodu B, Cole P.
Source

Department of Oral Pathology, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA.
Abstract

With approximately six million users, smokeless tobacco has received considerable scrutiny as a risk factor for oral cancer. We review the relationship between smokeless tobacco use, keratosis, and oral cancer. Several features of smokeless tobacco keratosis, including the natural history, clinical presentation, and biologic behavior, differentiate it from other leukoplakias that exhibit greater malignant potential. Previous research has demonstrated that the relative risk of oral cancer with smokeless tobacco use is 4.2, about half of the risk from smoking (relative risk = 10 to 15). Mortality data from populations with sustained high-frequency smokeless tobacco use do not support the mistaken prediction of an epidemic of oral cancer with increasing smokeless tobacco use. In fact, the risks of smokeless tobacco use compare so favorably with those of smoking that smokers who switch to smokeless tobacco reduce their risks for all tobacco-related illnesses including oral cancer. Although some criticize this proposal as less than an ideal solution for the nation's smokers, full adoption of this strategy would eventually save over 400,000 lives each year.

Tobacco use... [Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI

Actually, the research shows that dry snuff is more hazardous than chewing tobacco.

The UAB researchers found that the relative risk of getting cancer by use of either moist snuff or chewing tobacco is 0.7. The risk rises to 4.0 with use of dry snuff. The authors decided to distinguish the relative risk of cancer from the different types of smokeless products because dry snuff is an SLT product used almost exclusively by women, especially in the southern United States.

For Smokers Only


The footnote on the CDC page for the bullet:

Smokeless tobacco use can cause cancer, oral health problems, and nicotine addiction.2

Leads to Monograph 2: Smokeless Tobacco or Health: An International Perspective. DCCPS: TCRB :Tobacco Control Monographs

Tobacco grown and processed in Africa and India contain much higher levels of carcinogens than US products. Other plants are often used in their chewing products including betel leaves. http://repository.ias.ac.in/31346/1/31346.pdf

 

[kristin]

The National Cancer Institute estimates that about 7,850 people will die from oral cancers in 2012 and they estimate 75% (5,887) are from tobacco use. That translates to less than .0026% (or less than 26% of 1%) of the US adult population - not exactly an epidemic. The CDC reported that in 2007 about 2.5 out of 100,000 people died from oral cancer (1.875/100,000 tobacco-related). Tobacco users make up approximately 23,000/100,000.

Would those people be alive if they just didn't use tobacco? Well, it's hard to say. New studies have strongly linked alcohol abuse and the HPV virus to oral cancers. Many cases blamed on tobacco alone could actually have been a combination of tobacco WITH alcohol or not even tobacco but HPV that was missed. So, the risk of oral cancers in tobacco users who do not abuse alcohol would be even lower. The Oral Cancer Foundation states "When you combine tobacco with heavy use of alcohol, your risk is significantly increased, as the two act synergistically. Those who both smoke and drink, have a 15 times greater risk of developing oral cancer than others. It does not appear that the HPV16 viral cause acts synergistically with tobacco or alcohol, and HPV16 represents a completely unique and independent disease process." Which translates that NOT heavily using alcohol while using tobacco has a 15 times LOWER risk of oral cancer than if you drink heavily. How many of the predicted 5,887 tobacco-related oral cancers are heavy drinkers or also have HPV? we don't know, because they apparently haven't released those numbers if they've actually figured it out.

To put all of these numbers in perspective, in 2010 there were 32,708 traffic fatalities. That's 5 1/2 times the predicted 2012 deaths from tobacco-related oral cancers.

Remember, that most of these statistics include SMOKERS. The oral cancer risks are much lower in smoke-free users - about 1/2 to 1/4 that of smoking. But all you ever hear is about how smoke-less tobacco "increases your risk of oral cancer." I think most people who knew that the "increased risk" was considerably less than the odds of dying in a traffic accident, they wouldn't see that as much of a risk at all. Yet the ANTZ tactics make people believe their risks of oral cancer from smoke-free tobacco products are not only HUGE, but even greater than if they smoked. On this basis, they are trying to get smoke-free products either banned or taxed to the extent that they are not an attractive alternative for smokers. In effect, they will leave 23% of the public (20% smokers and 3% smoke-free tobacco users) with access only to a product with the greatest risks of oral cancers (cigarettes), because they are trying to save the .0026% (or 1.875 out of 100,000) who die from tobacco-related oral cancers. Since the vast majority of those cases are smokers, banning or discouraging the 3% of the US who use smoke-free products wouldn't even significantly lower the oral cancer rates. In fact, lack of access and increased costs would likely encourage smoke-free users to convert to smoking or back to smoking and INCREASE their risks.

So much for improving public health.

 

[Tank N Mofo]

Yeah, cause tobacco is a product that can relive stress and anxiety. So it is harmful in a combat situation when a solider is faced with stress and anxiety every day. Yeah, I got to throw down my B.S. card on that one.

 

[rothenbj]

I can agree with nopatch when speaking of smokeless used in India. I had a discussion with an Indian fellow about PVs, and snus. He had tried snus and didn't like it, but didn't know how to use it. He was lower liping and using one of the American brands. I gave him a portion of Swedish snus and he reciprocated with a packet of one of the Indian varieties.

Safety became a topic and I had stated that smokeless was much safer than smoking, which he disagreed with. However, he was speaking about gutka, khaini and other such products from India. I researched them after getting home and elected not to even sample it.

 

[kristin]

Yes, when we are speaking of smoke-free products, we are referring to modern US smoke-free tobacco or Swedish snus. I guess we should try to be more specific with that, although, the ANTZ like to throw in Indian and Indonesian smokeless tobacco cancer rates when arguing against Swedish snus and US dissolvables as THR products - which have no history or evidence of increased risks of oral cancer. The truth is - not all smoke-free tobacco is created equally, either. CASAA tends to focus on snus and dissolvables as the safer alternatives we defend - it really hasn't come up for us to need to "defend" any kinds of loose chew. Most of those are already heavily regulated and taxed.

But I would have to still question whether or not smokeless (even the kind used in India) has a "much higher risks" of oral cancer than smoking. Even if you doubled or quadrupled the risks of US chew it would still only make it a similar risk, not higher. So Indian chew would have to be more than 4 times worse than US chew to make it higher risk than smoking. According to this report, oral cancer rates in India are about double that of those in the US, but US lung cancer occurrences are about 8 times greater than in India.