Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here
What Can I Do?


Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP
Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE
Resources
Resources
Find useful publications, online documents & more.


DrugScreening.org


 

R.J. Reynolds' 'Camel Snus' Faces Criticism
November 26, 2008

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

As R.J. Reynolds prepares a national marketing campaign for the company's new smokeless-tobacco product, dubbed 'Camel Snus,' public-health experts say that not enough is known about the possible harmful effects of products being positioned as an alternative to smoking, the Washington Post reported Nov. 23.

Snus is a tea bag-like pouch of steam-pasteurized smokeless tobacco that consumers can tuck between their cheek and gum to deliver a hit of nicotine. R.J. Reynolds plans to launch the marketing campaign for Camel Snus early next year, and at least two other U.S. tobacco companies are test-marketing snus.

But Dorothy Hatsukami, director of the Tobacco Use Research Center at the University of Minnesota, said information about nicotine absorption and toxicity for tobacco products is lacking, and that there is not enough data on snus to make per-dose comparisons to cigarettes or spit tobacco.

"I think we're all holding our breath in terms of what's going to be coming down the pike," Hatsukami said. "There's not much known about these products -- what's in these products, how they're going to be used, who's going to be using them and what the effects of that use will be … Will it create more harm or less harm?"

Researchers at West Virginia University recently tested Camel Snus and found at least two carcinogens. "It's not like chewing gum. This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes," said Robert Anderson, deputy director of West Virginia University's Prevention Research Center.

Experts worry that Snus will be particularly attractive to children with its brightly colored tins and names like "frost" and "spice," and that adults will have a tough time monitoring children's use because the product is easy to conceal.

R.J. Reynolds spokesperson Daniel Howard says that the company does not target underage users and expects the product to be most popular among adult males and snuff users.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Bill Godshall on 01 Dec 08 04:58 PM EST
Even if the mortality risk of daily snus use was 50% (instead of 1%) of the mortality risk of daily cigarette smoking, health agencies, organizations and professionals would have an ethical duty to inform smokers of that fact. So why do some health agencies, organizations and professionals continue deceiving smokers into believing that smokeless tobacco is just as hazardous as cigarettes? It seems that they want smokers to continue smoking so it kills them.

Posted by Bill Godshall on 01 Dec 08 04:47 PM EST
On a mortality risk scale from 1 to 100 on which nicotine gum and lozenges are a 1 and cigarettes are a 100, smokeless tobacco products are a 2, and snus is about a 1.1. While more research is always nice, idustudy@aol.com is dead wrong to claim that "We aren't there yet."

Posted by idustudy@aol.com on 01 Dec 08 04:13 PM EST
While there is evidence that snus use is associated with less morbidity than cigarette smoking and MAY be an effective harm reduction tool, a few considerations need to be kept in mind: 1. There is a paucity of empirical research on both the long-term health consequences of snus, as well as its role in smoking cessation. Thus, additional studies are needed, especially those that follow subjects over a long period of time. 2. There is evidence of an increase in some cancers related to snus use (e.g., see Lancet, Oct. 2007). Thus, at best, snus use should not be considered an “endgame” in smoking cessation. 3. Most importantly, the recent AP article indicated that the snus currently being test marketed had a higher nicotine content than previous snus test-marketed in the U.S. An excellent article by Stepanov et al. in the Dec. 2008 issue of Nicotine & Tobacco Research analyzes the chemical composition of several smokeless tobacco products and found, e.g., high levels of chloride in Camel Snus, which may be associated with physiologic sequelae, such as cancer. In sum, further data are critical to an informed decision of the role of snus in public health. We aren’t there yet.

Posted by Bill Godshall on 01 Dec 08 04:00 PM EST
Per Cory's inquiry, here are three of the many dozen scientific articles/reports. Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/37 The Case for Harm Reduction for Control of Tobacco-related illness and death http://www.aaphp.org/special/joelstobac/20081026HarmReductionResolutionAsPassedl.pdf Harm reduction in nicotine addiction; Helping people who can't quit http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/e226ee0c-ccef-4dba-b62f-86f046371dfb.pdf

Posted by Cory on 01 Dec 08 03:37 PM EST
I wish I could believe your assertion, Bill. I'd immediately suggest using snus to all of my friends! What's the source of your stats? It just seems common sense that soaking the mucus membranes in carcinogens, holding the irritant right up against the tongue, gums and inside cheeks is not safer...it's just a different kind of exposure and still very dangerous. From watching friends who dip Copenhagen and also smoke, it seems to be easier to quit smoking than to quit dipping.

Posted by Bill Godshall on 01 Dec 08 11:30 AM EST
Cigarettes kill 440,000 Americans annually compared to several hundred oral cancer deaths due to smokefree tobacco products. That's because cigarettes are 100 times deadlier than moist snuff or chewing tobacco, while pasteurized snus (used in Sweden for decades) poses even fewer health risks (similar to nicotine gum and lozenges). By switching from cigarettes to smokefree tobacco, smokers can sharply reduce their health risks (almost as much as by quitting all tobacco) and eliminate secondhand smoke risks for others. Several million Americans and hundreds of thousands of Swedes have already switched from cigarettes to smokefree tobacco. Smokers also can reduce health risks by using smokefree tobacco as a substitute for cigarettes, as every dose of nicotine obtained from a smokefree product would otherwise be obtained by inhaling cigarette smoke. Smokers have a right to be informed that smokefree tobacco products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and public health officials have an ethical duty to inform smokers of these life saving facts. But some anti-tobacco extremists don't want smokers to reduce risks by swicthing to less hazardous alternatives.

Posted by Cory on 01 Dec 08 10:41 AM EST
Nicotine addicts who must spend time in a non-smoking environment may think this is a good idea for them. If they think so, I suggest that next time they want a smoke...they should just light their tongue instead of their cigarette!

Posted by reallycare on 28 Nov 08 01:16 PM EST
I keep wondering why the tobacco industry has carte blanche to put its untested products on the market - i'm not a proponent of prohibiting substances, but surely there can be some regulations and controls.

Your Turn! Post a public comment (read guidelines):

Name:

Comment:
(limit 200
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for all, please:

  1. Keep it clean, courteous, and on-topic. Comments are meant for thoughtful discussion of the article published above.

  2. Do not post promotional links to organizations, products or services, or personal requests for assistance (get help).

  3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercially-motivated posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments not conforming to these guidelines. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.