New Study Shows PAH’s In Smokeless
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have long been assumed to be absent from smokeless tobacco products such as moist snuff, dip and chewing tobacco because users hold it in their mouths instead of burning it. A recent study by Irina Stepanov of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis contends that a typical dip contains the same amount of PAHs as 5 cigarettes.
More info available at NewScientist here.
Additionally an article at HealthDay news goes on to say the following:
“This study once again clearly shows us that smokeless tobacco is not safe,” said Irina Stepanov, who led the research team. “Our finding places snuff on the same list of major sources of exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as smoking cigarettes,” she stated in the news release.
“The feeling of safety among some smokeless users is wrong,” said Stepanov, a chemist at the University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center in Minneapolis. “A total of 28 carcinogens were identified in smokeless tobacco even before our study. Continued exposure to these over a period of time can lead to cancer. Now we have found even more carcinogens in snuff.”
If you’ve read some of the comments on this blog you’ll see that there are quite a few people that simply don’t believe the “science” behind smokeless being dangerous. Just a little more “proof” if you’re willing to see it.
I think it is reasonable to question any corporate motives. This, however, is one area in which the motives which will always be ultimately to increase sales or respectability (no argument about that at all), have a difficulty crossing the “unrestricted funding” barrier. What that means is that the company has not previous knowledge of any results or has any direct influence on research. This is quite unusual if you compare it to government or anti-tobacco funding where the only research allowed or allowed to be published typically has to agree with the politics of the funders.
Researchers research what they want to, and then look for funding. If it was only about money, there would be no Brads out there. The big money is in anti-tobacco research.
Personally, though I know that Big Pharma is purely profit driven, and to my mind fairly disreputable, I still think that some of the research they fund is good. And this is a group that has actually forced researchers to suppress results they do not like.
Paul – I’m merely pointing out that big tobacco has its hand in Brad’s research. Nothing more nothing less. Quite frankly I don’t care about the politics of the issue. Big tobacco (and in this case I’m talking strictly about the smokeless companies) got me hooked on their product when I used it AS DIRECTED. Based purely on that fact they are the enemy in my mind. Because of that (admittedly biased) fact I have trouble taking Brad’s research at face value.
So you are saying that you judge people and information entirely by where they come from and not whether they are true or not?
1. The grant is unrestricted which means that the funder has no say in how it is used.
2. It is given to the university who then pays him so are you saying you don’t trust the university?
3. Just a real world of research note for you here: if you research in politically incorrect areas such as tobacco you will be refused support by almost every group out there so sometimes it is the only place you can go to continue your research.
4. Most tobacco researchers like Brad would gladly accept money from the usual places but it just isn’t there for them. It would have been much easier for him, and he would have had access to piles of money if he only would have gone hard core anti-tobacco instead. His problem is he focussed on health rather than politics.
Hi Paul! I was wondering when I’d hear from you in response to this post! We’ve had some good natured back and forth previously so I won’t rehash here. My only comment as to your “real deal” link would be directly from Brad’s blog where he lists his credentials: “My research is supported by unrestricted grants from smokeless tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund.” He’s funded by big tobacco… that’s all I need to know.
For the real deal on this story go to http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2009/08/minnesota-researchers-to-smokeless.html
Basically the study proved that there were more constitutents which are classified as carcinogens than previously thought. It said nothing about whether those actually result in disease. Those are two different things entirely. Vegetables contain some carcinogens too but because you eat them and don’t smoke them, the effects are negligible. Same goes for tobacco.
100% safe? Of course not; practically nothing is. Safer than cigarettes; yes, very.
As a commenter on the blog who was at the study conference says: the press release was quite inaccurate and does not properly reflect the statements of the researchers.