Nitrosamine content of a few different oral products

[grenade01]

I just thought this was interesting. I still wonder about the weird preservatives camel snus must have... I thought snus was considerably lower than other oral tobaccos... does this seem off to you guys?

[Raddleman]

Hmm that is novel to me, I always thought Swedish snus was the safest. I'll wait for sage or xobe to tackle this one :wink:

[deebocools]

don't believe the hype. You go on swedish snus message boards and buy from swedish snus suppliers, they all have a vested interest in saying it's the safest whether it's true or not.

also consider there are many, many confounding factors. camel snus might have lower TSNAs but you might need to use more of them or they might have other harmful effects. the issue of TSNAs is really blown out of porportion

[chainsnuser]

It's known that some other brands of smokeless tobacco have less nitrosamines than snus. They are all pretty new though, they get mixed reviews, regarding their taste and useability (nicotine-wise), they'll probably rot one's teeth off (which I find more alarming than these 'blurry' TSNA-dangers) and nobody knows how long they'll stay on the market...

I honestly don't mind, I did not switch from cigarettes to snus for health reasons and I use some brands of chewing tobacco as an alternation to snus that have never even been tested for TSNA-contents. Not that I'm suicidal, but I've read often enough, that the TSNA-topic is far exaggerated, at least compared to the risks of smoking.

How it comes, that some new brands contain less TSNA's than snus? I really don't know but I assume that the actual tobacco-content is far lower than in snus.

Cheers!

[Soft Morning, City!]

Honestly, I'm not that worried about a nitrosamine count of 3.10 parts per million. Any way you look at it, it's still drastically less dangerous than smoking.

And yes, the actual tobacco content in Marlboro or Camel snus is far lower than in real snus. I would imagine that their TSNA content is about equal to the mini portions that SM makes.

[snusjus]

The data taken from Swedish Match (General Snus) is outdated. According to the Gothiatek website, all SM snus is below 1.0 ppm (TSNA). As well, all V2 snus is at 0.7 ppm (TSNA). Ariva and Stonewall are dried tobacco in pellets, similar to a hard piece of candy. The nicotine levels are not sufficient to satisfy nicotine cravings (at least from my experience).

[deebocools]

parts per mil is not connected to portion size that's why it's per mil

[Raddleman]

The data taken from Swedish Match (General Snus) is outdated. According to the Gothiatek website, all SM snus is below 1.0 ppm (TSNA). As well, all V2 snus is at 0.7 ppm (TSNA). Ariva and Stonewall are dried tobacco in pellets, similar to a hard piece of candy. The nicotine levels are not sufficient to satisfy nicotine cravings (at least from my experience).

Hey snusjus, where did you get that info?

[fugitiveinkblot]

I also read in a report that tsna's in american smokeless in a longitudinal study have shown significant decline in the past twenty years. In the 80's there were samples of copenhagen and especially skoal that had in excess of 100 ppm, now the average is between 5-10 ppm. It is pretty much accepted that SM averages at 2.0-2.2 ppm. According to most recent research, the american smokeless has significantly reduced health risk to 20 years ago. Yet, it still contains 3-5 times as many tsnas.

[snusjus]

The data taken from Swedish Match (General Snus) is outdated. According to the Gothiatek website, all SM snus is below 1.0 ppm (TSNA). As well, all V2 snus is at 0.7 ppm (TSNA). Ariva and Stonewall are dried tobacco in pellets, similar to a hard piece of candy. The nicotine levels are not sufficient to satisfy nicotine cravings (at least from my experience).

Hey snusjus, where did you get that info?

Unfortunately, www.gothiatek.com no longer has any information besides a link to www.swedishmatch.com

Anyway, here is some data on smokeless tobacco products that was published in 2003:

http://cro.sagepub.com/cgi/content/full/15/5/252/T2

The Total TSNA count for SM snus was in the 2.0 range. However, the levels in the past few years have decreased to the 1.0 or below range. I wish I could find some recent numbers.

[sagedil]

All of the info that was on gothiatek is now on the Swedish Match site, you just have to dig a bunch to find it, or do a search from their home page.

As others have said, I quit smoking with snus. Don't really have to think much beyond that. :lol:

[Multinic]

A very good site for information about statistical studies regarding all sorts of smokeless tobacco (ST) is tobaccoharmreduction.org, which is associated with the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta. Their best estimate is a 99% reduction in mortality rates compared with smoking across all kinds of ST. Here is an interesting passage from one of their working papers:

"It is often claimed that the snuff from Sweden, which is manufactured using different processes than some other ST products, particularly chewing tobacco and American moist snuff, is less harmful than those other products. While it is plausible that there is some small risk difference because the Swedish-style product has somewhat lower levels of a few chemicals (called tobacco specific nitrosamines or TSNAs) that are suspected (though not definitively established) to be human carcinogens in sufficient doses, this situation is similar to the claims about pharmaceutical products: There is no evidence of differences in
actual human health effects, there is very little room for difference given that all the risks are immeasurably low, and the greatest health risk seems to be the mild stimulant effect of nicotine which is similar across products. Moreover, the levels of TSNAs in modern products are quite low compared to historical levels, and the epidemiology does not show
that any currently popular form of Western ST causes cancer. Nevertheless, manufacturers and marketers seem to have concluded that marketing new ST products as snus outside of
Sweden, and claiming that they are substantially different from existing products, is a good response to the misinformed beliefs about the risks from ST. Since people are more likely to accept a "new and improved" claim than being informed that they were badly mistaken in their previous beliefs, this strategy might prove useful for THR [tobacco harm reduction] , even though it mighttend to perpetuate scientific illiteracy."