Virginia tobacco maker seeks new FDA designation - News Article
- Thread starter banjo
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The story has been picked up by the AP News Service. This was one of the top sources when I googled the title.
Virginia Tobacco Maker Seeks New FDA Designation - ABC News
This is a good thing. Star Scientific is pushing the FDA to get cracking at setting up standards for Modified Risk tobacco products, as specified in the tobacco Act. In fact, tomorrow I am making a 5 minute presentation to the IOM Scientific Committee for on Scientific Standards for Studies on Reduced Risk tobacco Products. Bill Godshall will also be presenting. We are urging the Committee to establish standards that will fast-track products that already have a large body of research supporting comparative safety (e.g., snus) as "Modified Risk" and to consider any product that contains fewer toxins and carcinogens than cigarette smoke to be at a minimum "Reduced Risk."
Virginia Tobacco Maker Seeks New FDA Designation - ABC News
This is a good thing. Star Scientific is pushing the FDA to get cracking at setting up standards for Modified Risk tobacco products, as specified in the tobacco Act. In fact, tomorrow I am making a 5 minute presentation to the IOM Scientific Committee for on Scientific Standards for Studies on Reduced Risk tobacco Products. Bill Godshall will also be presenting. We are urging the Committee to establish standards that will fast-track products that already have a large body of research supporting comparative safety (e.g., snus) as "Modified Risk" and to consider any product that contains fewer toxins and carcinogens than cigarette smoke to be at a minimum "Reduced Risk."
Last edited:
Is it just my natural paranoia, or is there something funny about the wording here:
Why not just "90 percent to 99 percent less carcinogens"? Or is there something that's not being said here?
Why not just "90 percent to 99 percent less carcinogens"? Or is there something that's not being said here?
This company is becoming a mover and shaker in Virginia. They won a battle that Phillip Morris started I think in 2002. That is quite a feat, believe me. Got to keep our eyes on this one.
Last edited:
Yup, it's your natural paranoia. Nearly all the carcinogens in tobacco come from "Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines" that occur naturally in tobacco. Believe me, tobacco companies are not adding carcinogens in a nasty plot to kill off their customer base. In Sweden, they came up with a way of processing the tobacco to reduce those TSNAs. Swedes who use snus have no increased risks of mouth cancers over non-tobacco users. They have double the risk of pancreatic cancer, but we are talking about increasing from 4 to 8 per 10,000. The numbers are so small that this could be a statistical blip rather than a true risk increase. Smokers have higher rates of all cancers because burning tobacco creates 4,000 new chemicals, some of which are carcinogenic.
I don't know any of the details on how Star Scientific achieved this reduction. It might be a combination of breeding plants with lower TSNAs and processing that also reduces TSNAs. This is only a guess.
Actually, the statistic on pancreatic cancer is questionable, as well.
Tobacco Truth: New Study: Smokeless Tobacco is NOT Associated with Pancreatic Cancer
Tobacco Truth: New Study: Smokeless Tobacco is NOT Associated with Pancreatic Cancer
Last edited:
I was just going to add that link Kristin but you beat me to it.
The link to pancreatic cancer and smokeless has been under question for some time. It only showed up in a few studies and those where questioned as to how rigidly controlled they where for other risk factors. All the newer studies are showing essentially no increased risk.
The link to pancreatic cancer and smokeless has been under question for some time. It only showed up in a few studies and those where questioned as to how rigidly controlled they where for other risk factors. All the newer studies are showing essentially no increased risk.
That's such a relief - they used to add carcinogens in a nasty plot to addict their customer base - I guess they learned?
Hmmm. I'm not feeling comforted.
There is plenty of independent research (non-tobacco funded) to back up the claim that smokeless tobacco does not significantly increase the risk of cancer. Tobacoo-specific nitrosamines or otherwise.
Tobacco already has potential carcinogens that occur naturally in the plant (Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines -- aka TSNAs). But none of those potential carcinogens is addictive.
The addictiive chemicals that occur naturally in tobacco include nicotine and MAOIs, an type of antidepressant. Neither of these causes cancer.
I have never heard of a carcinogen that is addictive.
Elaine, I also believe, if my memory serves me, that the pancreatic of snus to never smoker ratio was approximately 8 to 4 in 100,000 rather than 10,000 with the further caveat mentioned above.
A little off topic... However, it appears the government
has been listening to the tobacco industry's concerns
Tobacco seen as a potential bio-fuel
No worry here about secondhand smoke for commuters
stuck in traffic. The tobacco wouldn’t be burned to power
vehicles, merely used to extract its oils and sugars
Article: Click Here
has been listening to the tobacco industry's concerns
Tobacco seen as a potential bio-fuel
No worry here about secondhand smoke for commuters
stuck in traffic. The tobacco wouldn’t be burned to power
vehicles, merely used to extract its oils and sugars
Article: Click Here
- Status
Similar threads
