Nasal Snuff

[apocalicious]

nasal snuff is not a thing i use very habitually like snus. so therefore im not too worried about its health problems....that being said i just got my dholaki sample pack! they hooked me up fat with 5 different bullets and 3 baggies...so 8 different kinds of snuff for zilch! ive tried the swiss chocolate and medicated so far...swiss chocolate is mmmmm mmmm great! just took a nice noseful of swiss chocolate with a portion of ettan already in my mouth and what a taste combo! ill definitely be ordering lots of the swiss chocolate...

[sagedil]

[quote="Doc"
Sorry to go all "scientific" on everyone, but it is my real hope that most of the people reading this forum will steadily move from more harmful forms of tobacco to less harmful foms. [/quote]

Actually, I suspect you will find that most readers of this forum long ago tuned out such issues. Most of us smoked cigarettes for God's sake, so being healthy was never the top priority.

I switched to snus for a variety of reasons. Any health benefits are a plus, but not the cause. And now that I am not smoking, I certainly am not gonna worry if my snuff has slightly greater chance of causing cancer than my snus. I'm not inhaling burning tobacco smoke any more, no matter WHAT I do now, I am better off.

You really want to be safe from things in tobacco that cause cancer, just quit then. Nothing safer. Of course, with my luck, I'd be hit by a falling paino the next week. :wink:

[bearcat87]

Doc,

Your info is much appreciated. I figured that dry nasal snuff was higher in TSNAs. This post has glorified snuff a bit too much. We should all be aware of it consequences as we should anything we do (although that kind of takes the fun out of some things). I only use snuff when I drink to excess which is about once a week. A 10g tin lasts about three or four months.

[sychodelix]

The problem with a whole lot of the studies on TSNAs is that most are done by anti-tobacco organizations that don't want anyone to use it. And if you look at the dates on the studies, most are done many years ago. The more recent ones, done by independent groups show that the TSNA levels of nasal snuff are pretty darn close to moist snuff and snus. Moist snuff has within the last year or two lowered the TSNA levels of it, and it is now now generally no more than a few times what snus is (still very low).

Now if you were to measure the TSNAs of toasted, heat cured snuffs, of course they have slightly higher TSNA's, because again, the burning/heating of tobacco is what causes it to happen. Still, the amount is normally at least 15-20 times less than cigarettes are.

So of course no form of tobacco is completely safe, especially if you have cardiovascular problems, but the dangers of any smokeless tobacco pales in comparison to anything you smoke.

And yes, snus is by far the safest form of tobacco, so if you use tobacco at all and are worried about possible dangers of it, stick to snus, or quit completely.

[deebocools]

sorry, but you're not being very scientific because your'e not thinking very broad.

"Using the model that TSNA's play a strong role in cancer rates we would expect to see cancer rates of dry snuff to be 4-7 times higher.."

We would expect to see, but is that science? the Question is, Have we seen? and I don't think we have. TSNAs are linked to cancer, but through different usages(like different body cavities) the chances become more varied.

We haven't even mentioned the rate of pancreatic cancer that snus presents that nasal snuff couldn't(unless you ate it).

What about the fact that the common usage of snus is 4-12 grams a day while the usage of snuff is far less? Even if we grant that it's 5 times as carcinogenic, then a dry snuff user would have to use more than a 5th the average consumption of snus to have more risk, and that's hardly common.

whether or not nasal snuff "screws up" your nose is very relative. Besides cancer, in what ways does it mess it up? Is a runny, bleeding, or inflamed nose as worrisome as gum recession, teeth staining or other problems attributed to snus? that's up to the discretion of the user, and if it's not fatal or debilitating than it's hardly anything to demonize snuff or snus for.

[chainsnuser]

I think that Doc is absolutely right, that the whole TSNA-discussion is not for nothing. Nitrosamines are among the known cancer-causers.

Everybody else is right, that the dangers from inhaling smoke (not only tobacco-smoke, also exhaust gases or the smoke from every open fire etc.) are 100 times higher than the dangers from the TSNA's in non-smoked tobacco. For sure, some people have died from using smokeless tobacco, but from epidemic research, on a population-level, there is not even any evidence that the benefits of using nicotine do not outweigh the dangers. For everyone who dies prematurely there may even be two people who live longer lives because of the stress-relief-factor of nicotine and 1000 people who are simply not affected, health-wise.

My belief is, that the nitrosamines in tobacco are not more dangerous than the nitrosamines that can be found everywhere around us, e.g. in every food-product. Some anti-tobacco-workers also often overlook, that not only tobacco-users die from cancer and especially mouth-cancer normally has nothing to do with tobacco-use and is more related to the genetic disposition of the single person.

So yes, I also think that we must not overstress the TSNA-argument, when talking about smokeless tobacco. I, personally, use some brands of chewing tobacco almost daily, that have never even been examined for TSNA-contents (I have no idea how high or low they are). But I agree, that it's certainly not a bad move on the (snus-) manufacturers' side, to keep the TSNA-levels down.

Cheers!

[Doc]

The increased incidence of nose/throat cancer that I refer to (5 times) is from actual OBSERVED cancer. I want to make this clear, dry snuff has been observed to increase cancer rates.
All that being said, these studies suck. A lot more money would be needed to verrify these findings. Who will pony up the cash for this. NO ONE.
The main problem, from a statistical point of view, is that the groups that use nasal snuff are not the same as the groups that use moist snuff. The main group that has traditionally used nasal snuff are, according to the studies authors, mostly southern women.
We can always say that the data is flawed and incomplete, all studies are. I just make my best choices based on the evidence that I have.

[sagedil]

Any links to the data you are referring too?

[toekuttr]

I too enjoy snuff far too much to dismiss it that easily considering how effective the snuff/snus combo is and much lower in TSNAs than cigarettes.

I wouldn't argue that snuff is higher than snus lb for lb but the fact is that so little is used in comparison and most users rid the majority of the snuff relatively quickly. Wouldn't this all actually mean less TSNA ingested in comparison?

The average dose of snuff is measured in mg, not grams. I doubt the majority of snuffers use more than gram or two a day as opposed to 10-15 grams of snus daily. Add to that the fact that snus sits against your gums and the juice is actually swallowed. Taking all this into account it could be said that snuff exposes a user to far less TSNAs than snus, yes/no?

[Toque Snuff]

Toque TSNA.

I'm not sure were those figures for dry nasal snuff are coming from but I thought you might be interested in Toques TSNA content.

NNN 1.1, NAT 1.05, NAB 0.0 and NNK 0.8 that gives a total TSNA of 2.95.

That is not 60.00 PPM the total TSNA for Toque is only 2.95 PPM

[sychodelix]

Thanks for the info, Roderick. It's nice when a company does their own research on this like Swedish Match/Gothiatek does.

[Toque Snuff]

My pleasure Sychodelix.

Doc, you asked who would pay for these studies? Well the Life Insurance Companies are now offering nasal snuff users the same life premiums as non-smokers and both The Royal College of Physicians and Cancer Research (UK) have concluded that English nasal snuff is about as harmless as a cup of coffee. The studies are out there it's just that the interest isn't. When snuff starts to replace cigarettes (and it will) believe me the studies will surface.

I can guarantee you I wouldn’t risk my company being sued by saying this if they hadn’t done all the studies and made the comments they have. You may not know this, with big tobacco being sued right, left and centre, but in over 300 years there hasn’t been one case of nasal cancer reported, nor one litigious action against an English nasal snuff company.

Here are some of the quotes you can find in the medical journals:

Professor Martin Jarvis, of Cancer Research UK: says that the health implications surrounding snuff use are significantly lower than smoking. "Studies show that the health hazards surrounding snuff are much less than cigarettes and the risk is approximately one per cent compared with the risks associated with smoking," he explains. "The reason for this is that by smoking you are setting fire to the products which causes their combustion. Snuff doesn’t have the combustion products which are carcinogenic and all the user is getting is the nicotine."

Professor Michael Russell, father of tobacco addiction research:
"Snuff could save more lives and avoid more ill-health than any other preventive measure likely to be available to developed nations well into the 21st century". "Switching from cigarettes to snuff could have enormous health benefits". Snuffing has two major advantages, firstly there are no products of combustion such as tar, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. Secondly it cannot be inhaled into the lungs, which eliminates any risk of lung cancer.”

Professor (Sir) Robert Peto, Oxford University, World renowned epidemiologist on smoking:
“If this or some other such habit were to become widespread and did to any substantial extent replace smoking (particularly of cigarettes) then the net effect would be likely to be a reduction in tobacco-induced mortality.

Hope this helps.

[Doc]

Torque,

While I am always open to new data, I would much rather that data come from independant researchers, rather than from the companies who produce any potentially harmful product. I do believe that it is possible that dry snuff can have low levels of TSNA's like any moist snuff. If you know of any independant carcinogenic studies that have been done, please post a link.
The problem that I have with your last post is that you used quotes that, to my knowledge, are only intended towards moist snuff, like snus. You seem to riding on the medical opinoin of moist snuff, particularly snus, not standing on the actual medical opinion of dry snuff.
Nitrosamines increase as other chemicals are broken down. In a recent study of nitrosamines in the urine of both smokers and snuff users, the levels were similar. Yet we know that smoking causes more cancer. My point is that the nitrosamine levels in a product before consumption is only half of the story. We simply don't know what a particular product does until we study it over a long period of time.
I have looked, and I have yet to find, a good long term study of exclusively dry snuff users. The few that I have found had too many problems to really count on, but they did find a five fold increase in cancer in the nasopharanx. That's the place where your nose and throat join.
Yes, you can say that dry snuff doesn't appear to cause nose cancer, but that is not the problem. The cancer seems to form in the nose/throat junction.
While they don't have the power of research, if your going to quote researchers/doctors make sure they are referring to nasal snuff. In all of the quotes that you used I saw no indication of dry/nasal snuff. I feel confident that all of them were refering to moist snuff.
I really do hope that your company and others have produced a product that is low in TSNA's. I believe that lowering these chemicals greatly reduces the harm of the product. If you have funded outside research on your product, that is a good start. Please post a link to those studies as well as any information that you have on the health effects of dry/nasal snuff. I look forward to reading it.

[chainsnuser]

The first time I took nasal snuff was in the early 80's, at that time nasal snuff was marketed quite heavily as a means to stop smoking in Germany, and I didn't have any problems to buy it as a 13 years old schoolkid (who didn't look older BTW). There was no anti-nasal-snuff-propaganda around, not even from anti-tobacco-workers, who were the same liars, puritans and opportunists back then. I think this speaks volumes.

Really, all the anti-tobacco-propaganda of today originated in the 60's and originally was solely anti-smoking, not anti-tobacco. I'm sure one out of 100.000 people will get nose-cancer from nasal snuff, but living in a big city, I don't have a shadow of a doubt that my chance to get nose-cancer from car-exhausts (or as a long-term-result of my former smoking-habit) is 100 times higher.

This is no harm-extermination forum. There are many forums around for people who seek the "maximum healthy" living, far away from civilisation, in a cave, who workout every day, only drink fresh spring water and medicate themselves with homeopathic lotions.

It's just not useful (IMHO) to look for possible bad health effects of smokeless tobacco (nasal snuff or snus), when decades of scientific research haven't found any conclusive proof.

Cheers!

[Toque Snuff]

Doc
I couldn't agree more. We most definitely need more independent studies. Some of the worst I have read so far come from the big pharmaceutical companies, I understand they have the same vested interest in selling their patches, gums, pills and sprays as I have in selling snuff, I just wish they would be a little less blatant.

If you read the Royal College of Physicians report about half way through they have a section, although small, on nasal snuff. The Cancer Research report is all about nasal snuff.

I think for truly independent reports we must look to the life insurance companies. Now they really have a vested interest and that is not investing in potential cancer cases and keeping their premiums low and attractive.

Could you please supply me with any report that shows any link to cancer in the nose/throat junction from English nasal snuff. If such a report exists don't you think we'd have been sued by now? LOL!

By the way the names Toque! Although I have to admit "Torque" does have a bit of power to it.