Tobacco Use Statistics Biography
There are two types of smokeless tobacco - snuff and chewing tobacco. Snuff, a finely ground tobacco, is packaged as dry, moist, or in sachets (tea bag-like pouches). Typically, the user places a pinch or dip between the cheek and gum. Sniffing (inhaling) dry snuff through the nose is more common in European countries than in the United States. Chewing tobacco is available in loose leaf, plug, or twist forms, with the user putting a wad of tobacco inside the cheek. Smokeless tobacco is sometimes called "spit" or "spitting" tobacco because people spit out the tobacco juices and saliva that build up in the mouth. Snus is separated from other smokeless forms as it does not produce the need to spit.
Chewing tobacco and snuff contain 28 carcinogens (cancer causing agents). The most harmful carcinogens in smokeless tobacco are the tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNA's). Snuff dippers consume on average more than 10 times the amount of cancer causing substances (nitrosamines) than cigarette smokers. They are formed during the curing, fermenting and aging of tobacco. TSNA's have been detected in smokeless tobacco at levels 100 times higher than the levels of other nitrosamines that are allowed in bacon, beer and other foods. Other cancer causing substances in smokeless tobacco include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, crotonaldehyde, hydrazine, arsenic, nickel, cadmium, benzopyrene, and polonium (a radioactive element from the soil it is grown in, read more on the dangers of this) Some may argue that many of these are in spit tobacco in very small volumes, and that volume of exposure dictates risk. However, we have no significant research on what the effects of even the smallest amounts of some of these are when a person is exposed to them over decades of intimate exposure/use.
Another element found in smokeless tobacco is nicotine. Nicotine is absorbed by smokeless tobacco users at a rate 2 to 3 times higher than that of cigarette smokers, facilitating rapid addiction. Also, the nicotine stays in the bloodstream for a longer time. It has been reported that some chewing tobacco products actually contain microscopic abrasives which speed the absorption of nicotine, and carcinogens into the cell membranes. This is denied by tobacco manufacturers. In OCF's opinion, a group which has proven their willingness to lie under oath (none admitted that they knew nicotine was addictive contrary to their internal company memos) cannot be trusted as a source of information. NO peer reviewed published study addresses this question with any conclusion. In this same light, more recently tobacco research dollars were spent to convince the public that "light" cigarettes were a safer alternative to conventional cigarettes. This has subsequently been proven to be not the case, and recent scientific revelations to the contrary have forced them to suspend such claims. The history of the big tobacco companies has been one of deception, and misdirection. An August 2006 U.S. District Court ruling declared that cigarette companies knowingly misled consumers with claims that low-tar and "natural" cigarettes were less harmful than other cigarettes. These so-called "harm-reducing" cigarettes marketed between 1998 and 2004 delivered more nicotine than their predecessors, upping the delivery of smoking's addiction factor in each cigarette by an average of 10 percent. People should be very skeptical about the tobacco industry's newest claims about smokeless tobacco given their history of deception and lies.
Smokeless tobacco is not a completely safe substitute for cigarettes. There are those who argue that IF it replaced smoking tobacco use in the US, we would see a reduction in tobacco (smoking) related death rates, and they are correct; if all smokers used spit tobacco it would reduce the number of lung cancers, and perhaps heart disease significantly. We agree that this is a likely scenario. But we do not think that given other nicotine replacement strategies, (nicotine containing gums, patches, lozenges, nicotine nasal sprays, nicotine inhalers, lotions, and among a variety of herbal nicotine containing chews, even a black tea based chewing tobacco now available on the market (Blue Whale), which appears to contain no known carcinogens, but only the nicotine found in existing spit tobaccos), that their argument is justification for endorsing smokeless tobacco use. These alternatives run from OTC low nicotine level products to Rx strength products.
It seems those advocating for "harm reduction" are only interested in tobacco being the delivery vehicle for the nicotine. If they are so interested in public good, what difference does it make to them the mechanism of delivery? It seems that the funders of their interest in smokeless as the method of choice are ...of course are smokeless tobacco companies. A coincidence? We find their passion for this perspective suspect because of the significant tobacco dollars that have been behind their direction, their research work, and their chairs in harm reduction. Arguments that they have had other funding will only be met with skepticism until revelation of all funding sources in specific terms is made evident. So for the record OCF is in favor of nicotine replacement therapy. We just do not believe that tobacco is the ideal vehicle for delivering it to the patient / consumer.
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
Tobacco Use Statistics
No comments:
Post a Comment