Any Snus without Propyleneglycol (E 1520)?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Zeno
    Member
    • Apr 2008
    • 79

    Any Snus without Propyleneglycol (E 1520)?

    As Propyleneglycol is toxic for the liver and the kindneys and may cause Headaches I try to avoid it whenever possible. Is there any Snus on the market where Glycerol (E 422) is used instead? Maybe you could have a look at your snus boxes and tell me when you've found one?
    Unfortunately my favorite Ettan portion is using E 1520
  • phish
    Member
    • Jan 2007
    • 265

    #2
    I have a tin of gotland yellow next to me and e1520 isn't listed on the ingredients. It has e422 e1520 and e500.

    * Edit *

    I am an absolute pleb! Gotland yellow does have it in

    Comment

    • TropicalBob
      Member
      • Feb 2008
      • 316

      #3
      Zeno: Serious question: Where did you learn that propylene glycol is toxic to anything? It's 80 percent of the liquid that creates the vapor for electronic smoking (I'm an e-smoker of pipe, cigar and cigarette). PG is considered completely safe by America's FDA. It's used in all kinds of medicines. Ingestion is said not to be any problem. The jury may take years to determine if we e-smokers should be inhaling it as vapor all day. But where did you get that it's toxic to liver and kidneys? I want to read that paper. We have numerous research doctors saying it's 100% percent safe for e-smoking.

      Comment

      • lxskllr
        Member
        • Sep 2007
        • 13435

        #4
        Here's the Wiki on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E1520

        I never heard anything about it being harmful either. I wonder if Zeno is confusing it with ethylene glycol(antifreeze). That's quite toxic, and will cause liver and kidney damage.

        Comment

        • TropicalBob
          Member
          • Feb 2008
          • 316

          #5
          Thanks. I've read the Wikipedia entry before, along the Dow Chemical Co. technical paper on propylene glycol. I think it might be another glycol with those toxic effects on liver and kidney.

          Hope so.

          Comment

          • Zeno
            Member
            • Apr 2008
            • 79

            #6
            I didn't confuse it with ethylene gycol, which is in fact much more toxic than the propylene variant. I've studied chemistry, so I think I have some knowledge about it. It's an interesting phenomena that, when googling for it, the most English speaking pages state that is has not a big toxic potential but there are many German pages emphasising the potential health risks of it.

            One thing I was able to find on an English page is:

            'Propylene Glycol:
            ... The Material Safety Data Sheet warns users to avoid skin contact with propylene glycol as this strong skin irritant can cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage.'

            However, they didn't reference the source of this information. But as already written above, there are some German pages stating exactly the same. When I remember my days in the lab, it was definitively nothing to put on the 'harmless list'. Glycerol however, seems to have no toxic potential at all (at least not more than salt and sugar), so I would prefer this for my snus...
            Just remember that according to the FDA Aspartame is also harmless!

            Although, I don't think that the toxicity of PG it is high enough to keep me off from using Ettan snus (it's just too good for that), just when there is a good alternative around I would consider using this.

            However, I've found on a German page some reports from people getting severe headache when using mouthwash or other products with PG in it. So, when somebody gets a headache from snus it may be worth to consider that it could probably be not only Nicotine related...

            Comment

            • aardvark
              Member
              • Jan 2008
              • 43

              #7
              Originally posted by Zeno
              'Propylene Glycol:
              ... The Material Safety Data Sheet warns users to avoid skin contact with propylene glycol as this strong skin irritant can cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage.'
              I am astonished to hear that there are sources saying that propylene glycol is considered that much toxic since it is added to many drugs that are not well water soluble (such as paracetamol syrup, which is in fact aimed primarily for pediatric(!) use)...
              My pharmacology/toxicology book [1] states that 1,2-Propandiol, which will be transformed into lactic acid, is 1/3rd less toxic than 1,3-Propandiol what would become malonic acid in the body. There are no more notes on its toxicity or anything there what makes me think that small amounts of it are considered to be harmless.

              Isn't 1,2-Propandiol also a food preservative? Could be the reason why it's favored over glycerol.

              [1] Thieme, «Pharmakologie & Toxikologie», 15th edition, Pg. 521.

              Comment

              • TropicalBob
                Member
                • Feb 2008
                • 316

                #8
                Thanks for the reply. I'll pass it on to the e-smoking researchers I correspond with. I, too, wonder why vegetable glycerine is not used.

                Keep in mind that propylene glycol is now being INHALED to the lungs of more than 1-million e-smokers (myself included) hundreds of time every day. ANY health hazard in that vapor would raise major flags!

                There are billions of dollars, literally, in new e-smoking revenues in balance here. And Big Pharmaceutical wants to kill e-smoking, since they won't sell their worthless patches, gums, and lozenges to e-smokers. Trust No One.

                Comment

                • chainsnuser
                  Senior Member
                  • Jan 2007
                  • 1388

                  #9
                  Zeno, Northerner states the ingredients for most brands. It seems, that E1520 is very common. I unfortunately don't know a brand that doesn't contain this additive.

                  BTW, if German-speaking websites write horror-stories (true or not) about everything, that has "glycol" in the name, then it could trace back to the 1985-wine-scandal. Maybe you remember.

                  Cheers!

                  Comment

                  • rustic
                    Member
                    • Sep 2007
                    • 54

                    #10
                    I'd never really considered why the use PG instead of Glycerol, but it's a good question. I know that many tobacco companies transitioned to PG from Glycerol in most tobacco because of health concerns.. I remember reading that Glycerol is pretty much harmless when ingested, but setting it on fire makes it less than harmless..


                    - Jeff

                    Comment

                    • Zeno
                      Member
                      • Apr 2008
                      • 79

                      #11
                      Originally posted by chainsnuser
                      Zeno, Northerner states the ingredients for most brands. It seems, that E1520 is very common. I unfortunately don't know a brand that doesn't contain this additive.

                      BTW, if German-speaking websites write horror-stories (true or not) about everything, that has "glycol" in the name, then it could trace back to the 1985-wine-scandal. Maybe you remember.

                      Cheers!
                      Yes, I remember this very well. I was working in an analytical lab that time and a lot of people emptied their wine cellars, bringing us samples to check for glycol. The deal was that we can keep one bottle of it. As we've only used 1-2 microliters for the test we've had plenty of first class wine to drink

                      Comment

                      • Zeno
                        Member
                        • Apr 2008
                        • 79

                        #12
                        Originally posted by rustic
                        I remember reading that Glycerol is pretty much harmless when ingested, but setting it on fire makes it less than harmless..

                        - Jeff
                        Yes, this may be true. Burning Glycerol and inhaling it may not be a good idea. But for oral use it would be my choice. Maybe Aardvark is right with his assumption about food preservative.

                        As I'm growing my own tobacco this year I will make my own snus and try using glycerol for it. I'll keep you posted but it will be winter then...

                        Comment

                        • Zero
                          Member
                          • May 2006
                          • 1522

                          #13
                          I wouldn't worry about propylene glycol - as Paracelsus famously said, and as I feel applies strongly here, "The dose makes the poison". I use a lot of things in the lab which, in their pure and concentrated state, are considered to be some degree of health and safety hazard, but which in very dilute states pose no risk at all.

                          The amount of propylene glycol in snus is very small. If you filled a shot glass with it and drank it you would likely be very ill and you would shock your organs with a huge dose of something they don't like, but in the minute quantities used in snus I would feel that it really poses no risk at all.

                          Consider alcohol - if you drank 10ml of beer every day would you even notice? Would it really be a harm to your kidneys and liver? Would you even feel any of the intoxicating effects? Now if you drank five litres of beer every day it may be a totally different story. Concentrated hydrogen peroxide, for another example, would cause terrible chemical burns if applied even to unbroken skin - it carries an NFPA health rating equal to chlorine gas. Still, at 3% in solution with water it is commonly sold in pharmacies as a topical disinfectant, perfectly safe to use on open wounds, etc.

                          Toxicity is an extremely relative thing - it's not a thing you can say that "this compound is toxic" and have it apply 100% all the time to any amount whatsoever. Anyone in a western country will have been exposed to small levels of propylene glycol for decades upon decades and I'm quite certain that such exposure is extremely rarely or, more likely, never the cause of any health problems worth worrying about.

                          Comment

                          • chainsnuser
                            Senior Member
                            • Jan 2007
                            • 1388

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Zeno
                            Yes, I remember this very well. I was working in an analytical lab that time and a lot of people emptied their wine cellars, bringing us samples to check for glycol. The deal was that we can keep one bottle of it. As we've only used 1-2 microliters for the test we've had plenty of first class wine to drink
                            Damn, that's cool, Zeno!

                            BTW, I remember that during the glycol-scandal the song:
                            Trink'n ma noch a Flascherl Wein,
                            Es muß ja nicht das letzte sein *
                            suddenly had a new meaning. :lol:

                            Cheers!

                            * Let's drink another bottle of wine, it must not be the last one.

                            Comment

                            • Zero
                              Member
                              • May 2006
                              • 1522

                              #15
                              Väterchen dein Glas ist leer,
                              Doch im Keller ist noch mehr!

                              :lol:

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X